Lt. Col. Peters on Afghanistan bombing: A message to North Koreans

President Trump Statement on Dropping MOAB on ISIS 4/13/17

Breaking! U.S. Drops Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb on Afghanistan! “Mother of All Bombs”!

Trump Drops the ”Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan

WORLDS LARGEST Non-Nuclear Bomb GBU-43 B Massive Ordnance Air Blast

Published on Apr 13, 2017

Mother of all bombs GBU-43 B Massive Ordnance Air Blast.
U.S. on 04.11.2017 dropped the most powerful conventional bomb in its arsenal on Nangarhar, Afghanistan.
The bomb, known in military ranks as “MOAB,” or the “mother of all bombs,” was used Thursday for the first time in combat, though it was developed in the early 2000s.

Dr. Steve Pieczenik: Syria Strike Was A Message To China And North Korea

The United States has dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon after it targeted ISIS a network of caves and tunnels in eastern Afghanistan.

U.S. forces used a GPS-guided GBU-43 bomb, which is 30 feet long and weighs a staggering 21,600 pounds.

It is known as the ‘Mother Of All Bombs’ – a play on ‘MOAB,’ an acronym that stands for ‘Massive Ordnance Air Burst.’

A crater left by the blast is believed to be more than 300 meters wide after it exploded six feet above the ground. Anyone at the blast site was vaporized.

President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he was ‘very, very proud’ and called the operation ‘really another successful job. We’re very, very proud of our military.’

The Pentagon is denying that the attack was a revenge strike despite the fact that it came in the same area of Afghanistan where a Green Beret soldier was killed on Saturday.

Staff Sgt. Mark De Alencar, of 7th Special Forces Group, was cut down by enemy small arms fire while his unit was conducting counter-ISIS operations.

The military used a GBU-43 (pictured), which weighs a staggering 21,600 pounds, and has earned the moniker ‘Mother Of All Bombs

That MOAB’s first practical test was carried out on March 11, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida

President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he had authorized his military commanders to take actions like the one put into play on Thursday

Trump suggested he had not personally ordered the bomb strike but delegated authority to commanders in the field.

‘Everybody knows exactly what happened. So, what I do is I authorize my military … We have given them total authorization,’ he said.

The move marks the fulfilment of a 17-month-old campaign promise Trump delivered in Iowa, when he scoffed at ISIS terror forces and said he ‘would bomb the s**t out of them’ if he became president.

It also comes at a moment in the young Trump presidency when tensions are rising with Russia over its role in Syria, where ISIS has its headquarters.

Huge: The MOAB test fired in 2003 shortly before final preparations for it to be loaded onto an MC-130 attack aircraft

Then-candidate Donald Trump told an Iowa audience in November 2015 that he would fight ISIS from the air as president: ‘I would bomb the s**t out of them’

The explosion will also send a saber-rattling message to North Korea and Iran that rogue states’ nuclear-weapons ambitions could be met with brute force.

Trump said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un: ‘I don’t know if this sends a message. It doesn’t make any difference if it does or not.’

‘North Korea’s a problem. The problem will be taken care of.’

The Department of Defense is denying that Thursday’s attack was revenge for Saturday’s death of Green Beret sergeant Mark De Alencar in the same region of Afghanistan

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that MOAB is ‘a large, powerful and accurately delivered weapon’ whose use was intended to collapse underground spaces used by ISIS terrorists to move freely and attack U.S. and allied troops.

‘The United States takes the fight against ISIS seriously, and in order to defeat the group we must deny them operational space – which we did,’ Spicer said.

He referred reporters’ questions to the Pentagon and ignored a shouted question about whether Trump had been aware the bomb was dropped before or during the military operation.

Trump said during a November 2015 campaign rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa that ISIS was ‘making a tremendous amount of money’ because of ‘certain areas of oil that they took away’ after the Obama administration withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s**t out of them,’ he said to wild cheers. ‘I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.’

Trump said in 2015 that he would ‘Bomb the sh*t out of ISIS’

Preparations: This was the scene as the only other MOAB to be exploded was readied for action in 2003 in Florida. The tail rotor is part of the guidance system for it to exploded over a specified target

Mushroom cloud: This was the aftermath of the test explosion seen outside Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida

The MOAB was pushed out the back door of a giant cargo plane on Thursday, flying to its target with GPS guidance. A MOAB has only been exploded once before – in a 2003 test

A specialized MC-130 ‘Hercules’ cargo aircraft released the weapon at 7:00 p.m. local time.

It was too big to drop from a traditional bomb-bay door or release from an aircraft wing, so ‘we kicked it out the back door,’ a U.S. official told Fox News.

The weapon’s sheer power produces a blast that can be felt miles away, largely because of its construction.

Engineers used an unusually thin aluminum skin to encase MOAB’s payload, in order to avoid a thicker steel frame interfering with the impact on a target.

The U.S. fast-tracked the MOAB in 2003 for use in Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the Defense Department later decided that the enemy provided too little resistance to justify its deployment.

It was available to the Obama administration throughout the former president’s entire two terms, but he never deployed it in combat.

Its first practical test was carried out on March 11, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

Sean Spicer announces dropping of GBU-43 bomb in Afghanistan

HOW ‘MOAB’ WORKS

Key stats:

Known as the ‘Mother Of All Bombs’

The U.S. military’s largest non-nuclear weapon

Each bomb costs around $16 million (£12.8 million)

Its explosion is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT and the blast radius is a mile wide

First tested by US forces in 2003

It is designed to destroy heavily reinforced targets or to shatter ground forces and armour across a large area

30 feet (9 meters) long and 40 inches (1 meter) wide

Weighs 21,000lbs (9,500kg) – heavier than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb

Leaves no lasting radiation effect

How it’s deployed:

The bomb has ‘grid’ fins that fold into the body and then open up in flight to help control its descent

It can only be deployed out of the back of a large cargo plane due to its size

The bomb rides on a pallet, a parachute pulls the pallet and bomb out of the plane

The pallet then separates so that the bomb can fall to its target

It accelerates rapidly to its terminal velocity and is partially guided to its target via satellite

It explodes six feet (1.8 meters) above the ground

The idea behind this ‘airburst’ mechanism is to spread its destructive range

The weapon carries a blast wave that can be felt more than a mile away

The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that the explosive colossus was dropped in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, making it the first time America’s largest non-nuclear weapon has been used in a combat situation.

Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said it was the first ever combat use of the bomb, which contains 11 tons of explosives.

Stump said the bomb was dropped on a cave complex believed to be used by ISIS fighters in the Achin district of Nangarhar province, very close to the border with Pakistan.

Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement about ISIS that ‘as ISIS-K’s losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers and tunnels to thicken their defense.’

‘This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against [ISIS-K].’

News reports suggest Nicholson made the decision to drop it from the sky.

He added that ‘[t]he strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities.’

The ISIS faction in Afghanistan is known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria-Khorasan province, or ISIS-K.

Story 2: Trump To NATO Members: Pay You Bills (2% of GDP For Military Spending) — NATO Not Obsolete — Videos —

Donald Trump “NATO is Largely Obsolete, It’s Got To Be Changed”

President Trump: I will work to enhance NATO

President Trump Holds a Joint Press Conference with Secretary General Stoltenberg

How Powerful Is NATO?

What is NATO?

Story 3: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov To United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — Show Us The Evidence of Chemical Gas Attack in Syria — Assad –“100% Fabrication” — Not Enough Evidence — Videos —

China’s Currency Manipulation

Why Trump Should Stop Accusing China of Yuan Manipulation

Chinese Yuan Devaluation is an Act of War

C. Fred Bergsten on Currency Wars and US Economy

China’s Upward Currency Manipulation Might Have To End – FX Reserves Are Falling

Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR

It is a standard belief of many in the US, including the new President, Donald Trump, that China is a currency manipulator. This is true, China has indeed been manipulating the value of the yuan. However, contrary to popular belief it has, at least recently, been manipulating that value up against the American dollar, not down. This of course makes Chinese exports to America more expensive and reduces the trade deficit between the two countries. Not that simple facts tend to change many peoples’ beliefs about the economy of course.

However, this all might come to an end soon enough because China’s foreign currency reserves are falling as a result of their interventions. In fact, that those reserves are falling is the very evidence we need to show that they are intervening up, not down:

China’s foreign exchange reserves unexpectedly fell below the closely watched $3 trillion level in January for the first time in nearly six years, though tighter regulatory controls appeared to making some progress in slowing capital outflows. China has taken a raft of steps in recent months to make it harder to move money out of the country and to reassert a grip on its faltering currency, even as U.S. President Donald Trump steps up accusations that Beijing is keeping the yuan too cheap.

As we can see the general assumption in the financial markets, and the correct assumption too, is that China has been intervening to keep the value of the yuan up, not down. The major way it has been doing this being by limiting the amount that Chinese citizens can move out of the country:

Further erosion of the world’s largest stockpile may prompt policy makers again to tighten measures for controlling outflows and on companies transferring money to other countries. Authorities recently rolled out stricter requirements for citizens converting yuan into foreign currencies as the annual $50,000 foreign exchange quota for individuals reset Jan. 1.

China’s foreign exchange reserves fell below the $3 trillion mark for the first time in almost six years as capital continued to flow out of the world’s second-largest economy, data from the People’s Bank of China showed Tuesday.

The reserves fell by $12.31 billion from the previous month to $2.998 trillion, following a drop of $41.08 billion in December. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had expected a $1 billion decrease in January.

The reason a capital outflow does this should be obvious. Yuan work only in China. Thus, to take money out of China you must sell yuan and buy some other form of money. That sale reduces the value of the yuan (more of something for sale does usually mean a price fall) against those other currencies. And thus the truth of those accusations of currency manipulation. As we can see the Chinese government is placing restrictions on peoples’ ability to sell yuan. This is thus manipulation which keeps the value up, not such that pushes it down.

All of which leaves us with an interesting point. The general demand is that China stop manipulating the value of its currency. OK, so, let’s insist upon that. The value of the yuan will fall, Chinese exports to America will be cheaper and we might well then see an increase in the US trade deficit. Which isn’t really what the people complaining about manipulation want, is it? But it may well be what they’re about to get.

Trump called China a ‘currency manipulator.’ Does it deserve the label?

During his presidential campaign Trump talked tough on China, accusing them of undervaluing the yuan. The International Monetary Fund has said that Chinese currency is “no longer undervalued”. Does China still deserve to be called a “currency manipulator”?(Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

President Trump on Wednesday said he would not label China a currency manipulator, contradicting one of the biggest economic promises he made on the campaign trail.

Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he had changed his mind because China is not currently manipulating its currency, adding that he hoped to enlist China’s help on containing the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Trump also indicated that he might be open to keeping Janet L. Yellen as Federal Reserve chair after her term expires. “I like her, I respect her. … It’s very early,” he said when asking about her reappointment.

Trump was highly critical of Yellen during the campaign. He accused her of keeping interest rates low to benefit the Obama administration and said she should be ashamed of herself. But Yellen has a reputation for being slow to raise interest rates, and Trump had also professed his preference for low interest rates in the past.

“I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you,” he told the Journal, when asked about Yellen.

The president is also “very close” to naming a vice chair and filling another open seat that governs community banking on the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during the interview.

In the interview, Trump also inveighed against the strong U.S. dollar, saying that the strength of the currency stemmed partially from people’s confidence in him, but that it was also hurting the economy.

“It’s very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency,” he said.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of international trade at Cornell University, said it was striking that a sitting president would comment so directly on the value of the dollar.

“It could also be taken as an implicit threat to other countries that if the dollar stays strong and if U.S. bilateral trade imbalances with its major trading partners stay high or continue to expand, that he will take some sort of action,” Prasad said.

The judgment on currency manipulation was scheduled to be released in a semiannual report from the Treasury Department that is due this week.

China defies international trade rules in some respects, economists say, but devaluing its currency is not currently one of them. While China suppressed the value of its currency for years to make its products cheaper abroad and boost its exports, for the past several years it has been intervening in currency markets to prop the yuan up, which actually benefits American exporters.

Wonkbook newsletter

Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.

“Certainly for the past six months, which is the period notionally covered by the April 15 report, China has been intervening to raise the value of its currency, not to suppress it,” said Matthew Goodman, a former Treasury official who helped to label China a currency manipulator during the Clinton administration.

China was a favored target of Trump’s on the campaign trail. He often said the world’s second-largest economy was taking advantage of the U.S., and that he would respond on his first day in office by labeling China a currency manipulator. He has also said he would impose tariffs of up to 45 percent on China if the country does not negotiate better trade terms with the United States.

Labeling a country a currency manipulator triggers an investigation and can eventually lead to tariffs or other economically punitive measures.

But when Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago last week, the conversation was much more genial. The outcome of the talks was a 100-day plan to reevaluate the countries’ trading relationship, including trying to boost American exports to China.

President Trump met with China’s president on April 6, after months of criticizing China and promising big trade changes. From blasting China for currency manipulation to accusing them of “raping our economy,” here are some of his biggest blusters from the campaign trail. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Trump Isn’t Wrong on China Currency Manipulation, Just Late

President Trump and the Chinese leader Xi Jinping at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida last week. Mr. Trump has promised to take action on Chinese trade and currency issues.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Has the United States mismanaged the ascent of China?

By April 15, the Treasury Department is required to present to Congress a report on the exchange rate policies of the country’s major trading partners, intended to identify manipulators that cheapen their currency to make their exports more attractive and gain market share in the United States, a designation that could eventually lead to retaliation.

It would be hard, these days, to find an economist who feels China fits the bill. Under a trade law passed in 2015, a country must meet three criteria: It would have to have a “material” trade surplus with the rest of the world, have a “significant” surplus with the United States, and intervene persistently in foreign exchange markets to push its currency in one direction.

While China’s surplus with the United States is pretty big — almost $350 billion — its global surplus is modest, at 2.4 percent of its gross domestic product last year. Most significant, it has been pushing its currency up, not down. Since the middle of 2014 it has sold over $1 trillion from its reserves to prop up the renminbi, under pressure from capital flight by Chinese companies and savers.

Even President Trump — who as a candidate promised to label China a currency manipulator on Day 1 and put a 45 percent tariff on imports of Chinese goods — seems to be backing away from broad, immediate retaliation.

And yet the temptation remains. “When you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk about devaluations,” the Chinese “are world champions,” Mr. Trump told The Financial Times, ahead of the state visit of the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, to the United States last week.

For all Mr. Trump’s random impulsiveness and bluster — and despite his lack of a coherent strategy to engage with what is likely soon to become the world’s biggest economy — he is not entirely alone with his views.

Many learned economists and policy experts ruefully acknowledge that the president’s intuition is broadly right: While labeling China a currency manipulator now would look ridiculous, the United States should have done it a long time ago.

“With the benefit of hindsight, China should have been named,” said Brad Setser, an expert on international economics and finance who worked in the Obama administration and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A Changing Trade Picture

After suppressing its currency through 2014, China has turned to propping it up, and its trade surplus as a share of its economy has declined over the last decade.

There were reasonable arguments against putting China on the spot and starting a process that could eventually lead to American retaliation.

Yet by not pushing back against China’s currency manipulation, and allowing China to deploy an arsenal of trade tactics of dubious legality to increase exports to the United States, successive administrations — Republican and Democratic — arguably contributed to the economic dislocations that pummeled so many American workers over more than a decade. Those dislocations helped propel Mr. Trump to power.

From 2000 to 2014 China definitely suppressed the rise of the renminbi to maintain a competitive advantage for its exports, buying dollars hand over fist and adding $4 trillion to its foreign reserves over the period. Until 2005, the Chinese government kept the renminbi pegged to the dollar, following it down as the greenback slid against other major currencies starting in 2003.

American multinationals were flocking into China, taking advantage of its entry into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, which guaranteed access to the American and other world markets for its exports. By 2007, China’s broad trade surplus hit 10 percent of its gross domestic product — an unheard-of imbalance for an economy this large. And its surplus with the United States amounted to a full third of the American deficit with the world.

Though the requirement that the Treasury identify currency manipulators “gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade” dates back to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, China was never called out.

There were good reasons. Or at least they seemed so at the time. For one, China hands in the administration of George W. Bush argued that putting China on the spot would make negotiations more difficult, because even Chinese leaders who understood the need to allow their currency to rise could not be seen to bow to American pressure.

Labeling China a manipulator could have severely hindered progress in other areas of a complex bilateral economic relationship. And the United States had bigger fish to fry.

“There were other dimensions of China’s economic policies that were seen as more important to U.S. economic and business interests,” Eswar Prasad, who headed the China desk at the International Monetary Fund and is now a professor at Cornell, told me. These included “greater market access, better intellectual property rights protection, easier access to investment opportunities, etc.”

At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn’t cost the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment. The trade deficit was because of Americans’ dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption, not a cheap renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they had to get it somewhere.

Photo

Shi Guangsheng, seated, then the Chinese trade minister, signing documents admitting China to the World Trade Organization at a ceremony in Qatar in 2001.CreditRabih Moghrabi/Agence France-Presse

And the United States had a stake in China’s rise. A crucial strategic goal of American foreign policy since Mao’s death had been how to peacefully incorporate China into the existing order of free-market economies, bound by international law into the fabric of the postwar multilateral institutions.

And the strategy even worked — a little bit. China did allow its currency to rise a little from 2005 to 2008. And when the financial crisis hit, it took the foot off the export pedal and deployed a giant fiscal stimulus, which bolstered internal demand.

Yet though these arguments may all be true, they omitted an important consideration: The overhaul of the world economy imposed by China’s global rise also created losers.

In a set of influential papers that have come to inform the thinking about the United States’ relations with China, David Autor, Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Gordon Hanson from the University of California, San Diego; and David Dorn from the University of Zurich concluded that lots of American workers, in many communities, suffered a blow from which they never recovered.

Rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs, one paper estimated. Another found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.

Economic theory posited that a developed country like the United States would adjust to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that competed successfully in global markets. In the real world of American workers exposed to the rush of imports after China erupted onto world markets, the adjustment didn’t happen.

If mediocre job prospects and low wages didn’t stop American families from consuming, it was because the American financial system was flush with Chinese cash and willing to lend, financing their homes and refinancing them to buy the furniture. But that equilibrium didn’t end well either, did it?

What it left was a lot of betrayed anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong end of these dynamics. “By not following the law, the administration sent a political signal that the U.S. wouldn’t stand up to Chinese cheating,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “As we can see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political support for open trade.”

If there was a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump.

Will Mr. Trump really go after China? In addition to an expected executive order to retaliate against the dumping of Chinese steel, he has promised more. He could tinker with the definitions of “material” and “significant” trade surpluses to justify a manipulation charge.

And yet a charge of manipulation would add irony upon irony. “It would be incredibly ironic not to have named China a manipulator when it was manipulating, and name it when it is not,” Mr. Setser told me. And Mr. Trump would be retaliating against the economic dynamic that handed him the presidency.

China is No Longer Manipulating its Currency

C. Fred Bergsten (PIIE)

November 18, 2016 9:45 AM

US President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to instruct his Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, just as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did in 2012. He would then presumably seek to negotiate with the Chinese to reduce their large trade surplus, which equals roughly half the total US trade deficit of about $500 billion, under the threat of limiting imports unilaterally if they failed to cooperate (and risking retaliation against US exports). A declining US trade deficit, if it could be achieved, would increase US economic growth. But China has not manipulated its currency, the renminbi, for the past two years, and even an erroneous designation would not enable the new president to take any retaliatory trade actions.

China was the champion currency manipulator of all time from 2003 through 2014. During this “decade of manipulation,” China bought more than $300 billion annually to resist upward movement of its currency by artificially keeping the exchange rate of the dollar strong and the renminbi’s exchange rate weak. China’s competitive position was thus strengthened by as much as 30 to 40 percent at the peak of the intervention. Currency manipulation explained most of China’s large trade surpluses, which reached a staggering 10 percent of its entire GDP in 2007.

China was not the only manipulator. A number of other Asian economies, including Taiwan and Hong Kong, also intervened regularly to keep from losing their competitive position to China (and thus to the United States as well). A few others, including Japan and Korea, intervened occasionally as well.

Naming a country a manipulator, however, has no significant operational consequences (which is one of the reasons it has not been done in recent years). The relevant US law, dating from 1988, requires only that the Secretary of the Treasury launch a negotiation with the indicted countries in an effort to rectify the situation. Trump and his advisors have suggested they would use a designation to impose new import restrictions against China, up to the level of the renminbi undervaluation that resulted, but they would have to invoke other US statutes to justify such action. (Regardless of manipulation, the administration might authorize the Commerce Department to apply countervailing duties against imports that were subsidized by undervalued exchange rates in China and elsewhere; this would probably run afoul of US obligations in the World Trade Organization, however, and might also be challenged domestically unless Congress explicitly authorized such treatment.)

I was among the first to call attention to the manipulation by the Chinese and others and to advocate strong action to counter it, but it must be recognized that the situation has changed dramatically over the past two years. China has experienced large outflows of private capital that have driven its exchange rate down and indeed sparked market fears of disorderly renminbi devaluations. To their credit, the Chinese have intervened heavily on the opposite side of the market: Instead of buying dollars to keep the renminbi weak, they have sold large amounts of dollars to prevent it from sliding further. Their recent intervention has promoted US competitiveness rather than undermined it. Manipulation (including by other countries) has passed largely into remission.

It would thus be factually incorrect, as well as ineffectual, for the new Trump administration to label China a currency manipulator (and the Chinese might well refuse to negotiate under such circumstances). Indeed, the White House would be running counter to the thrust of the new US currency law (although it could still label a country as a “manipulator,” even if it did not meet the terms of that law). The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 spells out three criteria for identifying a country for currency misbehavior:

a large bilateral trade surplus with the United States, which China has;

a material global current account surplus, which the Treasury Department interprets as meaning more than 3 percent of a country’s GDP, a bit more than China is now running; and

“persistent one-sided intervention” in the currency markets, to keep its exchange rate from rising, which China is clearly not conducting.

These tests would have caught China for eight consecutive years, from 2003 through 2010, but Treasury currently has placed China only on a “monitoring list” along with five others that meet at least two of the criteria or have met them in the recent past. There is always a possibility that China (and others) could resume the competitive nonappreciation of the earlier period if market pressure again pushed the renminbi upward, especially if China’s economic reforms faltered and its growth rate sank below the new target of 7 percent. So we cannot be confident that the problem has been definitively resolved.

Indeed, it would be desirable for the Trump administration to add a new tool to the US policy arsenal, to ensure the problem will not resurface, by announcing that the United States will counter any future manipulation by others with offsetting intervention of its own. If China buys $1 billion in an effort to keep the dollar artificially strong, the United States could buy $1 billion worth of renminbi to neutralize any impact of the Chinese action on the exchange rate between the two currencies. The Chinese currency and bond markets are now large enough to permit any foreseeable level of US intervention that might be needed. But simply the announcement of a policy of such “countervailing currency intervention” would almost surely deter future manipulation efforts, requiring very little if any actual activity. It should thus prolong the current remission of manipulation indefinitely. The Senate passed a bill authorizing “remedial currency intervention” in 2011, but the policy could be adopted under current law.

Trump’s economic team may decide to address a number of Chinese policies that support its exports and impede its imports, in an effort to reduce the Chinese surplus and the US deficit, as its predecessors have done for many years. There are several US statutes that provide a basis for doing so. Currency manipulation is not one of these, however, especially at the present time. The new administration should look for alternative paths to any immediate action while shoring up the country’s defenses against possible recrudescence of currency aggression in the future.

C. Fred Bergsten is senior fellow and director emeritus of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He was the founding director of the Institute from 1981 through 2012. He was previously assistant secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and is coauthor, with Joseph E. Gagnon, of the forthcoming Institute book Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States.

Trump Says Dollar ‘getting too strong’

Trump: Fed’s Yellen Keeps Rates Low for Political Reasons

Published on Oct 16, 2015

Oct. 16 — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sits down with Stephanie Ruhle about the state of the US economy and whether or not he shares the view of Carl Icahn who says we are headed for financial disaster. They speak on “Bloomberg ‹GO›.”

Yellen, Trump actually on the same page on fiscal policy?

Battle brewing between Yellen, Trump?

Yellen’s Fed Bad For America but will be Good For My Investments

Story 6: Trump Supporters and Talk Radio Will Dump Trump Should He Continue Flip Flopping and Listening To Liberal Democrat/Moderate Advisers — Videos

RUSH: It’s Clear That The Democrats Are SCARED TO DEATH Of Bannon

LIMBAUGH: The WORLD Was SPYING On Trump To IMPRESS Hillary

Rush Limbaugh 04/14/2017 | Judge Napolitano Was Right! The World Was Spying on Donald Trump

Roger Stone Explains Why Steve Bannon Was Removed From National Security Council

Dr. Jerome Corsi About Syria And White House Internal Struggle

What would happen if Trump fired Steve Bannon?

Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are tearing the White House apart

Roger Stone About Steve Bannon And Jared Kushner

Cohn: Trump pushing us hard on tax cuts

Cohn: We are very, very concerned about economic growth

Trump advisor Cohn: We can absolutely get to 3% growth this

Trump’s base turns on him

Steve Bannon’s downgrade is just one of many complaints. ‘We expect him to keep his word, and right now he’s not keeping his word,’ says one campaign supporter.

By ALEX ISENSTADT and MADELINE CONWAY

04/13/17 02:21 PM EDT

The swiftness and abruptness of Trump’s shift from bomb-throwing populist outsider to a more mainstream brand of Republican has taken the president’s stalwarts by surprise. | Getty

Donald Trump’s true believers are losing the faith.

As Trump struggles to keep his campaign promises and flirts with political moderation, his most steadfast supporters — from veteran advisers to anti-immigration activists to the volunteers who dropped their jobs to help elect him — are increasingly dismayed by the direction of his presidency.

Their complaints range from Trump’s embrace of an interventionist foreign policy to his less hawkish tone on China to, most recently, his marginalization of his nationalist chief strategist, Steve Bannon. But the crux of their disillusionment, interviews with nearly two dozen Trump loyalists reveal, is a belief that Trump the candidate bears little resemblance to Trump the president. He’s failing, in their view, to deliver on his promise of a transformative “America First” agenda driven by hard-edged populism.

“Donald Trump dropped an emotional anchor. He captured how Americans feel,” said Tania Vojvodic, a fervent Trump supporter who founded one of his first campaign volunteer networks. “We expect him to keep his word, and right now he’s not keeping his word.”

Earlier this week, Vojvodic launched a Facebook group called, “The concerned support base of President Trump,” which quickly drew several dozen sign-ups. She also changed the banner on her Facebook page to a picture of Bannon accompanied by the declaration: “Mr. President: I stand with Steve Bannon.”

“I’m not so infatuated with Trump that I can’t see the facts,” she said. “People’s belief, their trust in him, it’s declining.”

The swiftness and abruptness of Trump’s shift from bomb-throwing populist outsider to a more mainstream brand of Republican has taken the president’s stalwarts by surprise.

“It was like, here’s the chance to do something different. And that’s why people’s hopes are dashed,” said Lee Stranahan, who, as a former writer at Breitbart News, once worked with Bannon. “There was always the question of, ‘Did he really believe this stuff?’ Apparently, the answer is, ‘Not as much as you’d like.’”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The deflation of Trump’s base threatens to further weaken a president who’s already seen his public support drop to historic lows. Frustration among the president’s allies has intensified in recent days, with many expressing worry that Bannon, the intellectual pillar of the nationalist movement that catapulted Trump to the presidency, is being pushed out.

As Bannon’s influence wanes, on the rise is a small group of Wall Street-connected advisers whose politically moderate and globalist views are anathema to the populist cause.

The palace intrigue intensified this week after Trump refused to say he still had confidence in Bannon and downplayed the former Breitbart chairman’s role in his campaign victory. And it’s feeding suspicions that the president is changing his priorities.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the president’s most vocal backers on Capitol Hill, said he’s been disheartened by the chief strategist’s isolation.

“A lot of us look at Steve Bannon as the voice of conservatism in the White House,” said King, who has known Bannon for years.

The displeasure over Bannon’s reduced status has trickled down to Trump’s grass-roots army of volunteers. Among those unsettled is Shane Bouvet, a 24-year-old campaign volunteer and blue-collar single father from Illinois who became something of a hero in the Trump movement. On the eve of the inauguration, Trump, who had read about how Bouvet trekked across the country by car so he could watch the swearing-in, gave him a check for $10,000.

Bouvet later said the gift saved the life of his father, who was battling cancer and needed the money to cover medical costs.

That day, Bouvet also was introduced to Bannon. The two spoke briefly, and Bouvet came to identify with the adviser who, like him, represented a “forgotten America” that Trump had appealed to with his blue-collar pitch. He said in an interview that he still supports the president, but is troubled by reports that Bannon is on the outs and that senior adviser Jared Kushner, a New York City real estate scion, is accumulating influence.

“I love our president,” he added. “I would tell him, follow his heart instead of whispers in his ears.”

On his South Florida-based radio show, Trump backer John Cardillo has begun to hear from listeners who are disillusioned with the rising influence of moderate staffers like Kushner and Gary Cohn, the Goldman Sachs executive-turned-Trump economic adviser.

For Cardillo, too, it’s been a letdown. During the 2016 Republican primary, he was attracted to Trump because of his insurgent streak. As a former New York City police officer, Cardillo identified with the candidate’s blue-collar style. He fell hard and got aboard the Trump train early, backing the insurgent candidate over home-state favorite Marco Rubio.

Trump voters “felt like they were voting for an anti-establishment candidate — and they’re terrified, they’re losing faith,” Cardillo said. “They’re saying, ‘Why does he have these people around him?’”

The gripes go beyond Bannon’s apparent downgrade. Many of Trump’s most stalwart supporters, including radio show hosts Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham, called last week’s bombing of Syria a betrayal of Trump’s pledge to be an “America First” commander in chief who would avoid unnecessary conflicts overseas.

“People are concerned because it’s such a morass over there,” said Howie Carr, an influential Boston radio show host and vocal Trump backer. “I don’t think any of my listeners have any great stomach for overthrowing Assad, as odious as he is.” | AP Photo

Concerns about Trump’s foreign policy approach intensified on Wednesday when he backed away from his oft-repeated campaign line that NATO is “obsolete.” Instead, during an appearance with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump called the organization a “great alliance.”

Howie Carr, an influential Boston radio show host and a vocal Trump backer, said he’s been mostly satisfied with the president’s tenure so far. But he said he and his listeners weren’t on board with the Syria bombing and warned against a U.S.-led push to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“People are concerned because it’s such a morass over there,” Carr said. “I don’t think any of my listeners have any great stomach for overthrowing Assad, as odious as he is.”

Other Trump boosters worry that he’s ditching his economic agenda. They wonder why he backed off his vow to label
China a currency manipulator, and are chagrined by his reversal on his position to eliminate the Export-Import Bank.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer took issue with the premise that Trump’s switch on labeling China a currency manipulator amounted to abandoning a campaign promise.

“The president’s tough talk … on a variety of subjects was to get results for the American people. That’s what he has pledged to do, to get more jobs here, to grow more manufacturing, to keep our country safe,” Spicer told reporters. “At the end of the day, this is always about developing a better situation for the American people, and I think he’s done that.”

“What is their product?” asked Larry Kudlow, a veteran economist who advised Trump’s campaign. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not giving up hope. But it’s looking very shaky to me.” | Getty

Still others are concerned about Trump’s lack of progress on reforming the tax code.

Larry Kudlow, a veteran economist who advised Trump’s campaign, expressed dismay that the president hadn’t yet released a tax plan. He said he was beginning to wonder whether the president is about to walk back his pledge to cut taxes.

“What is their product?” Kudlow asked. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not giving up hope. But it’s looking very shaky to me.”

Conservative economist Stephen Moore, who also advised the Trump campaign, said he’s reached out to the White House about the lack of a tax package.

“They’re all over the map,” he said. “I don’t know if they’re listening or not.”

Then there’s immigration, the issue that catapulted Trump to front-runner status. Activists are increasingly alarmed that the president has yet to follow through on his pledge to rescind protections for undocumented parents and children put in place under former President Barack Obama.

Brenda Sparks, an “angel mom” whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant, appeared onstage with Trump at an August campaign event in Phoenix. She said he promised her that he would overturn the program known Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in short order.

“I still support Trump but I’m going to hold his feet to the fire,” said Brenda Sparks, an “angel mom” whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant and who appeared onstage with Trump at a campaign event in Phoenix. “He has not lived up to that promise.” | Getty

While Sparks said she didn’t think it would be done immediately, “I had expected it before now.”

“I still support Trump, but I’m going to hold his feet to the fire,” she said. “He has not lived up to that promise.”

Michelle Dallacroce, an anti-immigration activist, is more pointed. Immigration is “why we voted for Donald Trump,” she said. “This could be the most elaborate reality show. I’m wondering, was this all an illusion for us, using our movement so he could get in there?”

Trump is hardly the first president to get crosswise with his supporters. After running on a promise to infuse Washington with change, Barack Obama faced sharp accusations from backers that he was moving too slowly to change the culture of the capitol. Governing, Obama learned, is a lot different than campaigning.

Not all of the president’s backers are disappointed. They point to his successful nomination of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and his rollback of environmental regulations as early wins.

“There’s always going to be things that aren’t perfect, but it’s exciting,” said Ed Martin, a conservative leader in Missouri.

But as Trump evolves, some of his loyalists are beginning to compare him to another Republican who lost the support of the party’s base: Arnold Schwarzenegger. After being elected California governor in 2003, the former movie star took on entrenched Democratic interests, lost badly, then tacked sharply to the left.

This week, some Trump die-hards passed around a column by conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter headlined: “Trump Can’t Let His Real or His Fake Friends Turn Him into Schwarzenegger Part 2.”

Schlichter, in an interview, said conservatives are fundamentally distrustful of Republican politicians who had often misled them. He urged the president to take some immediate actions, however small, to put his supporters at ease.

“You’ve got to understand the base. It’s like dating a girl whose father cheated on her mother. She’s always going to be suspicious,” he said. “He’s got to constantly provide wins because he’s got an emotionally damaged base that’s been abused.”

Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, has found an edge within the Trump administration by hiring two dozen policy experts, most with government experience. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

As power struggles and ideological battles engulfed the White House, an unlikely player is exercising new influence on the direction of President Trump’s administration.Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, is capitalizing on his new position as director of Trump’s National Economic Council to push a centrist vision and court bipartisan support on some of Trump’s top agenda items such as tax reform and a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.The growing strength of Cohn and like-minded moderates was on display this week as Trump reversed himself on several high-profile issues — including a less confrontational approach to China, an endorsement of government subsidies for exports and the current leadership of the Federal Reserve. The president’s new positions move him much closer to the views of Cohn and others on Wall Street, not to mention mainstream Republicans and Democrats.It was the clearest sign yet that an alliance of moderates in the White House — including Cohn; senior adviser Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and another influential Goldman Sachs alumna, Dina Powell — is racking up successes in a battle over ideology and control with hardcore conservatives led by chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who held sway at the start of the administration.In a White House short on experienced personnel, Cohn has found an edge by hiring two dozen policy experts, most with government experience. His team produced detailed proposals on overhauling the tax code, rebuilding infrastructure, cutting back financial regulations and restructuring international trade deals. He is widely considered a future candidate to be chief of staff.

From left, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Dan Scavino, assistant to the president and director of White House social media, listen during a news conference this week at the White House. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

“Cohn might be a newbie to policy and Washington, but you have to give him credit for one thing,” said Gene Sperling, who held Cohn’s job during the Obama administration. “While others seemed engaged in ideological and ‘House of Cards’-like staff warfare, he quietly and quickly focused on the first rule of governing: He hired some competent, professional staff at the NEC, and it has paid off for him.”

Cohn now finds himself in the awkward — and politically risky — position of being praised by Democrats but shunned by conservative allies of Trump who see the former Goldman Sachs executive as anathema to the values that got Trump elected.

“From a pure political perspective, I do not know if the White House appreciates how Gary Cohn is a liability with the Republican and conservative base, as well as the Republican Congress,” said Sam Nunberg, a strategist on Trump’s 2016 campaign. “The Trump White House will always be held in suspicion when you have someone who’s consolidated full economic power in the White House who is also a liberal, New York Democrat.”

Cohn has been getting flak in the conservative media as he has risen in profile. Rush Limbaugh last week called him “a very ideological liberal Democrat” and a “trader at Goldman Sachs.” He expressed concern that Cohn and his allies in the White House “are starting to have sway” at Bannon’s expense.

Cohn, who declined to comment for this article, has given thousands of dollars to candidates from both parties, including President Barack Obama and former candidate Hillary Clinton.

White House aides say Cohn has done well because Trump sees him, more than anything else, as a dealmaker. Cohn represents a bloc of White House officials who are working harder than before to court Democratic support for key parts of Trump’s agenda, having seen the Republican Party splinter during the health-care debate.

“I’m not a Democrat, and I’m not a Republican,” Cohn often says in meetings with business executives, according to two people familiar with his exchanges. “I just want to get things done.”

People who have met with Cohn in his new role said they weren’t aware of what his ideology was. He just seemed driven to forge agreements.

That philosophy has led Cohn to show enthusiasm for ideas such as a new tax on carbon — a Democrat-friendly idea which would raise revenue to ease tax reform, a top presidential priority, while also helping to curb carbon emissions. The idea is ridiculed by many conservatives on Capitol Hill, and the White House rapidly distanced itself last week after word leaked that senior officials were studying the concept.

“I think the National Economic Council has done a terrible job,” said Larry Kudlow, who was one of Trump’s top economic advisers during the campaign. “It’s the NEC’s job to put a plan together and show the president options and make decisions. So far, I would say they are way behind the eight ball.”

But even as the legislative agenda struggles to gain momentum, Cohn and his allies are having a clear impact on the president’s thinking. In the past week, Trump reversed his earlier statements and said he supported the Export-Import Bank, would not declare China a “currency manipulator” and said flattering things about Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen.

Conservatives took aim at the Ex-Im Bank and the Fed throughout much of Obama’s term, while Trump, as part of his tough trade rhetoric, promised to go after China’s currency practices on Day One of his administration.

Cohn’s stature among the top advisers is notable because he is one of the few who played no role in the campaign. Cohn, who grew up in a middle-class family and struggled in a number of schools because of dyslexia, graduated from American University and took a job with U.S. Steel in Ohio. During a trip to New York, he coaxed a well-dressed senior Wall Street executive into sharing a cab with him to the airport, acting as if he knew financial markets (he knew virtually nothing), according to an interview he gave author Malcolm Gladwell. Cohn schmoozed his way into his first Wall Street job and then climbed the ranks, eventually becoming Goldman’s president and chief operating officer.

While friends say he loves his new job, they say Cohn also holds the traditions of Washington in low regard.

At a recent dinner with friends in New York, he called Washington a “s—show,” according to a person familiar with the exchange.

Cohn has not tried to shirk his past at Goldman Sachs or hide his lavish lifestyle. He recently had drinks at the Four Seasons with Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, and shortly after the failure of the House GOP health-care legislation, he went on vacation in the Bahamas.

If he is able to deflect the growing criticism from hardcore conservatives, White House officials say Cohn will have a strong future as a Trump adviser given his experience and the deep bench of experts he has established.

This includes DJ Gribbin, an infrastructure expert, and Shahira Knight, a former congressional aide on tax policy who joined the White House from Fidelity Investments.

Other top members of the team include Kenneth Juster, who is slated to play a top White House role in international negotiations; Jeremy Katz, a former White House official in the George W. Bush administration; and Ray Starling, who works on agriculture issues and was formerly the general counsel for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

While Cohn has met with lawmakers from both parties and executives from numerous companies in his role, he rarely telegraphs what the White House plans to do.

One exception came last week, when — during a gathering of chief executives — he went into great detail about how the U.S. air-traffic-control system needed to be reworked.

He quickly moved through a technical discussion on why the United States should scrap its land-based radar system and adopt a global-positioning system, suggesting he had already devoted time to the topic. He said their approach would save 25 percent of the jet fuel consumed each year.

“We are going to cut flight times down fairly dramatically,” he told the executives. “We are going to cut the experience down. We are going to cut tarmac time down.”

His penchant for dealmaking has even attracted the admiration of Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a tough fiscal conservative and longtime critic of government spending. Cohn, working to fulfill Trump’s pledge to spend billions to rebuild infrastructure, has toyed with an idea that would pair $200 billion in taxpayer money with $800 billion in additional funds, mostly from private investors.

“You’ve got to give these Goldman Sachs guys credit,” Mulvaney said this week on CNBC about Cohn’s plan. “They know how to lever up.”

Bannon was previously a US Navy officer, a Goldman Sachs banker, a radio host, a research director, a film producer and then a media executive. He was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyerUSS Paul F. Foster as well as at the Pentagon. After his military service, he worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions Department. When he left the company, Bannon held the position of vice president. In 1993, he was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry and has produced 18 films since 1991.

In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. In one of Bannon & Co.’s transactions, the firm represented Westinghouse Electric which wanted to sell Castle Rock Entertainment.[34] Bannon negotiated a sale of Castle Rock to CNN, which was owned by Ted Turner at the time.[42]Instead of a full adviser’s fee, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld, which was in its third season. Bannon still receives cash residuals each time Seinfeld is aired.[42]Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in 1998.[34]

Earth science

In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the closed-system experiment project shifted emphasis from researching human space exploration and colonization toward the scientific study of earth’s environment, pollution and climate change. He left the project in 1995.[43][44]

Bannon persuaded Goldman Sachs to invest, in 2006, in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment.[45] Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From 2007 through 2011, Bannon was the chair and CEO of Affinity Media.[46][47]

Breitbart News

Bannon was a founding member of the board of Breitbart News,[57] an online far-right news, opinion and commentary website which, according to Philip Elliott and Zeke J. Miller of Time, has “pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material into the vein of the alternative right“.[17]

In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart‘s death, Bannon became executive chair of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News.[58][59][60] Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach toward its agenda.[61] Bannon declared the website “the platform for the alt-right” in 2016.[19] Bannon identifies as a conservative.[62][63][64] Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: “We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-‘ the permanent political class.”[65]

In 2016, Ronald Radosh claimed in The Daily Beast that Bannon had told him earlier, in a book party on November 12, 2013, that he was a Leninist, in that “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment”.[66] While Snopes considers this claim unproven,[67] other media such as Time magazine and The Guardian have reported or discussed it.[68][69]

In a 2014 speech to a Vatican conference, Bannon made a passing reference to Julius Evola, a twentieth-century, Nazi-linked Italian writer who influenced Mussolini‘s Italian Fascism and promoted the Traditionalist School, described by a New York Times writer as “a worldview popular in far-right and alternative religious circles that believes progress and equality are poisonous illusions.”[70] In referring to the associated views of Vladimir Putin, who is influenced by Evola follower Aleksandr Dugin, Bannon stated “We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as Traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.”[70] He has likewise quoted French anti-Enlightenment writer Charles Maurras approvingly to a French diplomat.[71][72]

On November 15, 2016, U.S. Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island released a letter to Trump signed by 169 Democratic House Representatives urging him to rescind his appointment of Bannon. The letter stated that appointing Bannon “sends a disturbing message about what kind of president Donald Trump wants to be”,[94][95][96] because his “ties to the White Nationalist movement have been well documented”; it went on to present several examples of Breitbart News’ alleged xenophobia.[97] Bannon denied being a white nationalist and claimed, rather, that he is an “economic nationalist.”[98]

On November 18, during his first interview not conducted by Breitbart Media since the 2016 presidential election, Bannon remarked on some criticisms made about him stating that “Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”[99][100] The quote was published widely in the media.[99][101][102][103]

Trump responded to the ongoing controversy over Bannon’s appointment in an interview with The New York Times by saying “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”[104]

Trump administration

Several days after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Bannon told an American newspaper, “The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote this: the media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”[105]

At the end of January 2017, in a departure from the previous format of the National Security Council (NSC), the holder of Bannon’s position, along with that of the Chief of Staff, were designated by presidential memorandum as regular attendees to the NSC’s Principals Committee, a Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering national security issues.[3][108][109] The enacted arrangement was criticised by several members of previous administrations and was called “stone cold crazy” by Susan E. Rice, Barack Obama’s last national security adviser.[110] In response, White House spokesman Sean Spicer pointed to Bannon’s seven years experience as a Navy officer in justifying his presence on the Committee.

In February 2017, Bannon appeared on the cover of Time, on which he was labeled “the Great Manipulator”.[111] The headline used for the associated article was “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?”, alluding to Bannon’s perceived influence in the White House.[112] In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Bannon analogized his influence to that of “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors“.[113][114][115]

Bannon was removed from his NSC role in early April 2017 in a reorganization by National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, who Bannon had helped select.[4] Some White House officials said Bannon’s main purpose of serving on the committee was as a check against former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn, who had resigned in February 2017 for misleading the vice president about a conversation with the Russian operatives.[116][5] Hence, with Flynn gone, Bannon was no longer needed.[4] Bannon reportedly opposed his removal from the council and threatened to quit if president Trump went forward with it, although Republican megadonor Rebekah Mercer urged him to stay.[53] The White House said Bannon had not attempted to leave, and Bannon said any indication that he threatened resignation was “total nonsense”.[117] Bannon had only attended one NSC meeting.[118]

Personal life

Bannon has been married and divorced three times. He has three adult daughters.

His first marriage was to Cathleen Suzanne Houff.[119] Bannon and Houff had a daughter, Maureen, in 1988 and subsequently divorced.[120][78]

Bannon’s second marriage was to Mary Louise Piccard, a former investment banker, in April 1995. Their twin daughters were born three days after the wedding. Piccard filed for dissolution of their marriage in 1997.[121][122]

Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness in early January 1996 after Piccard accused Bannon of domestic abuse. The charges were later dropped when his now ex-wife did not appear in court.[123] In an article in The New York Times Piccard stated her absence was due to threats made to her by Bannon and his lawyer:

Mr. Bannon, she said, told her that “if I went to court he and his attorney would make sure that I would be the one who was guilty” … Mr. Bannon’s lawyer, she said, “threatened me,” telling her that if Mr. Bannon went to jail, she “would have no money and no way to support the children.” … Mr. Bannon’s lawyer … denied pressuring her not to testify.[124]

Piccard and Bannon divorced in 1997. During the divorce proceedings, Piccard alleged that Bannon had made antisemitic remarks about choice of schools, saying that he did not want to send his children to The Archer School for Girls because there were too many Jews at the school and Jews raise their children to be “whiny brats”. Bannon’s spokesperson denied the accusation noting that he had chosen to send both his children to the Archer School.[123][125][126][127][128]

Bannon’s third marriage was to Diane Clohesy; they divorced in 2009.[129]

Jared Corey Kushner (born January 10, 1981) is an American real estate investor and developer, publisher, and senior advisor to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. Together with Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon he formed Trump’s leadership team. Kushner is said to be President Trump’s most trusted advisor, showing “unwavering loyalty” to his father-in-law.[3]

He was principal owner of the real estate holding and development company Kushner Companies and of Observer Media, publisher of the weekly, on-line New York Observer. On January 9, 2017, Kushner was named to be a Senior White House Adviser to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. As a result, Kushner resigned as CEO of his family’s real estate company and as publisher of the Observer.[4] He also divested “substantial assets”.[5]

Kushner was raised in a Modern Orthodox Jewish family in New Jersey.[18] He graduated from the Frisch School, a private, coed yeshiva high school, in 1999. According to a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, he was an honors student and a member of the debate, hockey, and basketball teams while at Frisch.[19]

According to Forbes, in 2017 Jared Kushner and his parents had a personal fortune of around $1.8 billion.[29] Kushner is a real estate investor, and has increased the Kushner Companies’ presence in the New York City real estate market as a principal in his family’s real estate company.[30] His father, Charles Kushner, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal campaign donations, and witness tampering in 2004, and was eventually convicted on all charges (by the then U.S. Attorney Chris Christie)[31] and sentenced to two years in federal prison.[32]

Kushner Companies purchased the office building at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007, for a then-record price of $1.8 billion, most of it borrowed.[27] However, following the property crash in 2008, the cash flow generated by the property was insufficient to cover its debt service, and the Kushners were forced to sell the retail portion in the building to Stanley Chera for more than $1 billion[33] and bring in Vornado Realty Trust as a 50% equity partner in the ownership of the building.[11]

In 2015, Kushner scored spot No. 25 on Fortune Magazine’s 40 under 40 list ranking the most influential young people in business.[35]

Newspaper publishing

At age 25, Kushner purchased the New York Observer, a weekly New York City newspaper, for $10 million,[36] using money he says he earned during his college years by closing deals on residential buildings in Somerville, Massachusetts, with family members providing the backing for his investments.[37]

After purchasing the Observer, Kushner published it in tabloid format.[38] Since then, he has been credited with increasing the Observer‘s online presence and expanding the Observer Media Group.[39][40] With no substantial experience in journalism, Kushner could not establish a good relationship with the newspaper’s veteran editor-in-chief, Peter W. Kaplan.[41] “This guy doesn’t know what he doesn’t know,” Kaplan remarked about Kushner, to colleagues, at the time. [41] As a result of his differences with Kushner, Kaplan quit his position. Kaplan was followed by a series of short-lived successors until Kushner hired Elizabeth Spiers in 2011.[42] In December 2011, the New York Post reported that the Observer expected to become profitable for the first time.[43] Spiers left the newspaper in 2012. In January 2013, Kushner hired a new editor-in-chief, Ken Kurson. Kurson had been a consultant to Republican political candidates in New Jersey[42] and one-time member of Rudy Giuliani‘s unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary campaign.

According to Vanity Fair, under Kushner, the “Observer has lost virtually all of its cultural currency among New York’s elite, but the paper is now profitable and reporting traffic growth … [it] boasts 6 million unique visitors per month, up from 1.3 million in January 2013″.[44] In April 2016, the New York Observer became one of only a handful of newspapers to officially endorse United States presidential candidate Donald Trump in the Republican primary, but the paper ended the campaign period by choosing not to back any presidential candidate at all.[45][46]

Kushner stepped down from his newspaper role in January 2017 to pursue a role in President Donald Trump’s administration. He was replaced by his brother-in-law, Joseph Meyer.[47]

Los Angeles Dodgers bid

Political activity

Earlier career and family history

Jared Kushner had been a life-long Democrat and had made major donations to its candidates for years before reportedly undergoing an “ideological conversion” and supporting the 2015–16 Trump campaign.[50][51][52][53] Kushner has had no prior involvement in campaign politics or in government before his father-in-law, Trump’s, campaign.[54]

Trump presidential campaign

From the outset of the presidential campaign of his father-in-law Donald Trump, Kushner was the architect of Trump’s digital, online and social media campaigns, enlisting talent from Silicon Valley to run a 100-person social-media team dubbed “Project Alamo”.[8] Kushner has also helped as a speechwriter and was tasked with working to establish a plan for Trump’s White House transition team should he be elected.[55] He was for a time seen as Trump’s de factocampaign manager, succeeding Corey Lewandowski, who was fired in part on Kushner’s recommendation in June 2016.[56] He has been intimately involved with campaign strategy, coordinating Trump’s visit in late August to Mexico and he was believed to be responsible for the choice of Mike Pence as Trump’s running mate.[8][57] Kushner’s “sprawling digital fundraising database and social media campaign” has been described as “the locus of his father-in-law’s presidential bid”.[58]

According to Eric Schmidt, “Jared Kushner is the biggest surprise of the 2016 election, Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources.”[6] Eric Schmidt said, “Jared understood the online world in a way the traditional media folks didn’t. He managed to assemble a presidential campaign on a shoestring using new technology and won. That’s a big deal. Remember all those articles about how they had no money, no people, organizational structure? Well, they won, and Jared ran it.”[6]Peter Thiel said “If Trump was the CEO, Jared was effectively the chief operating officer.”[6]

On July 5, 2016, Kushner wrote an open letter in the New York Observer addressing the controversy around a tweet from the Trump campaign containing allegedly antisemitic imagery. He was responding to his own paper’s editorial by Dana Schwartz criticizing Kushner’s involvement with the Trump campaign.[59] In the letter, Kushner wrote, “In my opinion, accusations like “racist” and “anti-Semite” are being thrown around with a carelessness that risks rendering these words meaningless.”[60]

The Washington Post, New York Times and numerous other national news authorities explain Kushner was an influential factor behind the firing of New Jersey governor Chris Christie as head of the transition team, as well as the dismissal from the Donald Trump transition team of anyone connected to Christie.[64][65] A source familiar with the Trump campaign explained that “Jared doesn’t like Christie. He’s always held [the prosecution of his father, Charles Kushner] against Christie.”[66] Kushner told Forbes that the reports that he was involved in Christie’s dismissal were false: “Six months ago Governor Christie and I decided this election was much bigger than any differences we may have had in the past, and we worked very well together. The media has speculated on a lot of different things, and since I don’t talk to the press, they go as they go, but I was not behind pushing out him or his people.”[67]

Senior Advisor to President Trump

Japanese PM Shinzō Abe, Jared Kushner, Ivanka, and President Trump, November 17, 2016

Trump put Kushner in charge of brokering peace in Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well as making deals with foreign countries, although in what way he is in charge is unclear.[72][73][74] Furthermore, after Donald Trump became President-elect, Kushner and his wife met with Japanese Prime Minister and other Japanese officials while his wife was conducting a licensing deal between her namesake clothing brand and a Japanese government-owned company.[75] His wife sat in on a meeting between her father, then President-elect Donald Trump and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.[76] In February 2017, his wife Ivanka Trump was a surprise attendee at the Chinese Embassy’s New Year’s party.[77] In late March 2017 he was also given the new role of leading the “White House Office of American Innovation”.[78][79]

National Economic Council director

On January 20, 2017 Cohn took office as Director of the National Economic Council (NEC) in President Donald Trump‘s administration, a position which did not require Congressional confirmation. By February 11, 2017, The Wall Street Journal described Cohn as an “economic-policy powerhouse”[9][10] and The New York Times called him Trump’s “go-to figure on matters related to jobs, business and growth”.[11] With the confirmation of Trump’s December 12, 2016 nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, being held back by Congressional hearings, Cohn filled in the “personnel vacuum” and pushed “ahead on taxes, infrastructure, financial regulation and replacing health-care law”.[9] Had Cohn stayed at Goldman Sachs, some believed he would have become CEO when Lloyd Blankfein vacated that office.[9] His severance package at Goldman Sachs amounted to $285 million.[12] Additionally, Cohn sold a stake valued at $16 million in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world’s largest bank as of 2017.[13]

Cohn supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall legislation, which would separate commercial and investment banking.[14]

Career

Cohn started his career at the U.S. Steel home products division in Cleveland, Ohio.[15] After a few months, he left U.S. Steel and started his career as an options dealer in the New York Mercantile Exchange.[15] He taught himself the basics of options by reading about it in the days between meeting the hiring manager and joining the New York Mercantile Exchange.[16]

Goldman Sachs

Cohn was recruited by Goldman Sachs in 1990.[17] In 1996, he was named head of the commodities department and in 2002, he was named the head of the entire Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Division (FICC) division. In 2003, he was named co-head of Equities and in January 2004, Cohn was named the co-head of global securities businesses .[18] He became President and Co-Chief Operating Officer and director in June 2006.[19]

In late 2009, Cohn led a delegation from Goldman Sachs to meetings with the government of Greece, which included proposals (that were not adopted) to push debt-due dates far into the future, “much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.”[20] Goldman Sachs had been scrutinized for creating or pitching products used by Greece to “obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels”.[20]

In 2010, Cohn testified to Congress on the role of Goldman Sachs in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.[21] Cohn testified: “During the two years of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion in its residential mortgage-related business. We did not ‘bet against our clients,’ and the numbers underscore this fact.”[22]

In February 2015, Cohn hosted the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in San Francisco. As host, Cohn asked questions of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple Inc., while Cook was on stage.[23]

Compensation

Cohn’s salary at Goldman Sachs was US$22 million in 2014.[24] He received $21 million in 2015.[25]

He received a severance package worth around $285 million – mostly in stock – from Goldman Sachs upon leaving to join the administration of Donald Trump.[12]

Personality and work style

Critics of Cohn attribute to him an arrogant, aggressive, abrasive and risk-prone work style. They see his “6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs” as intimidating, as he might “sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader’s desk, his thigh close to the employee’s face and ask how markets were doing”[17] According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn’s arrogance is at the root of the problem.

When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody’s a counterparty, not a customer, not a client.[17]

“He’s a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips.”[17]

Ovitz sees Cohn’s toughness as a “positive” value, explaining that a high ranking executive can’t be “all peaches and cream.”[7][17]

Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as “firm,” “strategic” and “driven.” Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn “was tough,” and added that “Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off and used his head.”[17]

In 2009, the Hillel International building at Kent State University was named the Cohn Jewish Student Center in recognition of a gift from Cohn and his wife.[29] It is the first Hillel building built directly on the campus of a state university.[30]

Cohn has been a supporter of Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities and has supported Harlem RBI since 2011. At that time, Harlem RBI was given the chance to build its own charter school. Mark Teixeira of the New York Yankees and Harlem RBI director Rich Berlin asked Cohn if he could help them raise the capital they needed to build the school.[31]

In December 2012, Cohn attended the 12-12-12 Concert for Sandy Relief which raised money for the Robin Hood Relief fund to help victims of Hurricane Sandy.[32]

On June 17, 2013, Cohn was honored at the annual “Bid for Kids” gala in order to raise funds for Harlem RBI and the DREAM charter school. Cohn said in an interview that Harlem RBI is a project that is “very near and dear to his heart.”[31]

Published works

Cohn has written editorials in prestigious journals and newspapers.[citation needed] In March 2014, he wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, discussing “The Responsible Way to Rein in Super-Fast Trading.”[35]

AN ally of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the hack of the Democratic Party in the run up to the US elections was not Russia but instead an ‘inside job’.
Former British ambassador Craig Murray said he has met the person who handed over the e-mails and they WERE from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Clinton and Trump Clash Over Alleged Russian Hack of DNC at the First Presidential Debate

Trump Benefited From Russia Hacking Suggests Obama Spokesman

JUDGE “RUSSIA DID NOT HACK THE ELECTION”! CHAOS! CHUCK TODD AND REINCE PRIEBUS GO AT IT!

Def Secretary Gates: Obama Double-Crossed Me

Speaking Of ‘Fake News’!! Rachel Maddow Was So Happy Spewing Out Fake Polls!!

MSNBC Apologizes for Fake News

Globalists Are To Blame For Their Collapse, Not Russia

CIA Agent Admits “No Evidence” for “Fact” of Election Tampering

Clinton Refuses To Take The Blame

Paul Jay and Abby Martin on Trump and ‘Fake News’

The Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes John Podesta

Published on Nov 5, 2016

With the Wikileaks release of thousands of emails belonging to John Podesta, very little is known in US society about Podesta himself. While he’s maintained a low profile, John Podesta is actually considered one of Washington’s biggest players, and one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in the world.

In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin explores John Podesta’s political rise, his vast network of corporate connections and his think tank “Center for American Progress.” Learn why the Podestas and the Clintons are a match made in ruling class heaven.

Abby Martin on Hillary Clinton’s Hunger for Endless Wars

Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part Two]

Tariq Ali talks to investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, about his revelations concerning the chemical attack at Ghouta, Syria in August 2013.

Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part One]

Published on Aug 10, 2016

Tariq Ali talks to investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, about the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 and describes what the Americans and Pakistanis knew about his whereabouts.

Glenn Greenwald: Why Did Trump Win? Blame the Failed Policies of the Democratic Party

GREAT INTERVIEW: Stephen Cohen Analyzes US Prospects with Russia after Trump’s Win

John Pilger talks on RT about Trump, Very Interesting Interview

2016 RED ALERT! PUTIN HAS LEFT THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND IS FIGHTING THEM

Putin Tells The West A Dirty Little Sercet! The New World Order Is terrified!

Putin: US / NATO is irreversibly pushing the world towards nuclear war

Biggest News Story Of The Year! And you’ve never heard about it. Until Now.

McCain Steps On Gen Dunford To Protect Establishment Elite War Option in Syria

No-fly zone would require war with Syria and Russia – top US general

Putin Issues No Fly Zone, Puts Obama On Notice!

THEY WILL DESTROY THE ELITE! Vladimir Putin And Donald Trump Have First phone Call

NATO Now In Declared War With Russia!

The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Push for War & the Making of a Failed State

Published on Mar 3, 2016

http://democracynow.org – The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled “The Libya Gamble” on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.

Libya 5 years after NATO intervention: From one of richest nations in Africa to most troubled

How Will History Judge U.S., Coalition Intervention in Libya?

Global Empire – US 2016: Trump or Hillary?

Hillary Clinton & The Truth About Libya, watch this & you will vote Bernie Sanders P3

Published on May 17, 2016

Minute 23 Dr Derbesh states his feelings about Hillary Clinton.

Tariq Ali talks to Professor Mabruk Derbesh, formerly University of Tripoli, now in exile, about the worsening state of affairs in Libya. May 2016. Dr Derbesh was opposed to Gadaffi, but now is shocked at how how his country was “liberated”.

Hillary Clinton & the truth about Libya: Watch this & you will vote for Bernie Sanders!

Semantics – The Rise and Fall of Muammar al Gaddafi

Gaddafi The Truth About Libya- Documentary

Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi?

This Is How a No-Fly Zone Actually Gets Enforced

Debate The Libyan Intervention: Humanitarian or an Aggression?

Inside Story – NATO’s intervention in Libya

U.N. approves Libya no-fly zone

CNN: UN approves no-fly zone in Libya

CNN: A closer look at Libyan no-fly zone

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowers

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails

He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources

The leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the ’tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders’

Murray says: ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks’

‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,’ Murray insists

Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by ‘disgusted’ whisteblowers – and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right), told the Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray’s claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta.

In Podesta’s case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic ‘phishing’ scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.

But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University

His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks – which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.

Wikileaks published the DNC messages in July and the Podesta messages in October. The messages revealed efforts by some DNC officials to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was running against Hillary Clinton.

Others revealed that Clinton aides were concerned about potential conflicts and mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation.

Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities.

He suggested that Podesta’s emails might be ‘of legitimate interest to the security services’ in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

‘I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true,’ he said. ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.’

Murray was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office.

He describes himself as a ‘close associate’ of Julian Assange and has spoken out in support of the Wikileaks founder who has faced rape allegations and is currently confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.

‘The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,’ Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.

‘Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.’

Murray suggested that John Podesta’s emails might be ‘of legitimate interest to the security services’ in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials

The Washington Post reported last Friday that U.S. intelligence agencies had ‘identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails.’

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

‘It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,’ a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. ‘That’s the consensus view.’

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

‘It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,’ a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. ‘That’s the consensus view.’

The Obama administration has been examining Russia’s potential role in trying to influence the presidential election. Officials said Russians hacked the Republican National Committee, but did not release that information in a deliberate effort to damage Clinton and protect Donald Trump.

Several congressional committees are also looking into the suspected Russian interference.

While there is a consensus on Capitol Hill that Russia hacked U.S. political groups and officials, some Republicans say it’s not clear whether the motive was to try to swing the election or just to collect intelligence.

‘Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that’s the subject of investigation,’ said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. ‘But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.’

President elect Donald Trump raised doubts about the reports and said this was an ‘excuse’ by Democrats to explain Clinton’s November loss.

‘It’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,’ said Trump on Fox News Sunday.

WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US

WikiLeaks have suggested that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked the Clinton and Podesta emails, and not Russian hackers as is widely reported.

According to a new interview in the U.K.’s Daily mail newspaper, WikiLeaks say that U.S. intelligence reports suggesting that Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary are “absolutely wrong”.

In the interview Wikileaks envoy Craig Murray and former British ambassador stated the he personally flew to the United States and was handed both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails.

Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Murray stated regardless of whether Russia hacked any emails or not the Wikileaks emails did not come from Russia.

‘Neither of the leaks came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

He said the motivation behind the leaks was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’

The new information may likely lead U.S. intelligence sources to the more information about the source of the leak given they will be able to cross-reference Murray’s flight records and cross-reference satellite and CCTV cameras during the time Murray was in Washington.

Murray told the Express that the person that who handed over the e-mails was from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Murray’s statements now officially corroborate prior claims initially made by Director Oliver Stone who suggested the leak was most likely an inside job in an interview with CNN three months ago.

Wikileaks is also retweeting confirming that Russia was not their source.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange floated the possibility on Tuesday that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was an informant for the organization.

“Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks,” Assange said in an interview to be aired Tuesday on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

Seth Rich, a DNC employee who did voter outreach, was shot to death last month early in the morning in Washington, D.C. The case is unsolved and police have speculated it was an attempted robbery.

On Reddit, Rich’s death has become the source of theories about whether he was involved in the leaks of emails and files from the Democratic National Committee last month. US intelligence officials have linked the leak to a Russian hack, though there has been no official conclusion on the matter.

“I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange added, when asked what he was alleging. “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.”

By Andrew P. Napolitano

December 15, 2016

Earlier this week, leaders of the Democratic National Committee and former officials of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign made the startling allegation that the Russian government hacked into Clinton’s colleagues’ email accounts to tilt the presidential election toward Donald Trump. They even pointed to statements made by CIA officials backing their allegations.

President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?

Here is the back story.

The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies — God only knows the number of secret agencies — have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.

The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.

I have often argued that this is profoundly unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment requires a judicially issued search warrant specifically describing the place to be searched or the thing to be seized before the government may lawfully invade privacy, and these warrants must be based on probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the person whose privacy the government seeks to invade.

Instead of these probable cause-based, judicially issued search warrants, the government obtains what the Fourth Amendment was written to prohibit — general warrants. General warrants are not based on evidence of probable cause of criminal behavior; rather, they are based on government “need.” This is an unconstitutional and absurd standard because the government will always claim that what it wants, it needs.

General warrants do not specifically describe the place to be searched or the thing to be seized; rather, they authorize the bearer to search where he wishes and seize whatever he finds. This is the mindset of the NSA — search everyone, all the time, everywhere — whose data forms the basis for analysis by the other agencies in the intelligence community.

In the case at hand, the CIA and the FBI looked at the same NSA-generated raw data and came to opposite conclusions. Needless to say, I have not seen this data, but I have spoken to those who have, and they are of the view that though there is evidence of leaking, there is no evidence whatsoever of hacking.

Leaking is the theft of private data and its revelation to those not entitled or intended to see it. Hacking is remotely accessing an operational system and altering its contents — for example, removing money from a bank account or contact information from an address book or vote totals from a candidate’s tally. When Trump characterized the CIA claim that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails intending to affect the outcome of the election as ridiculous, this is what he meant: There is no evidence of anyone’s altering the contents of operational systems, but there is evidence — plenty of it — of leaking.

If hackers wanted to affect the outcome of the election, they would have needed to alter the operational systems of those who register voters and count votes, not those who seek votes.

During the final five weeks of the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of DNC and Clinton campaign emails to the public. WikiLeaks denies that its source was the Russian government, yet for the purposes of the DNC and Clinton campaign claims, that is irrelevant because whoever accessed these emails did not alter the operational systems of any of the targets; the accessor just exposed what was found.

We do not know what data the president-elect examined. Yet in six weeks, he will be the chief intelligence officer of the U.S., and he’ll be able to assimilate data as he wishes and reveal what he wants. He should be given the benefit of the doubt because constitutionally, the intelligence community works for him — not for Congress or the American people.I

Who did the leaking to WikiLeaks? Who had an incentive to defeat Clinton? Whose agents’ safety and lives did she jeopardize when she was extremely careless — as the FBI stated — with many state secrets, including the identity and whereabouts of U.S. intelligence agents and resources?

The answer is obvious: It was the same intelligence community that cannot agree on the meaning of the raw data it has analyzed.

Someone leaked the Democrats’ and the Clinton campaign’s private work, and the government has a duty to find the person or entity that did so, even if it was one of the government’s own. Though the truthful revelation of private facts may have altered some voters’ attitudes, there is no evidence that it altered ballot totals. The law guarantees fair elections, not perfect ones.

Did the Russians hack Hillary Clinton? No. No one did. But some American intelligence agents helped WikiLeaks to expose much dirty laundry.

Obama shrugs off Russian hacking — until Donald Trump elected president

Foreign governments have launched numerous cyberattacks on the U.S. government and sensitive industrial sites, but Republicans say President Obama has not responded in a forceful way to years of Russian hacking.

A more assertive response might have headed off the type of hacking Russia is accused of launching during the presidential election, they say.

Russia, whose supposed cyberoffensive now is generating a Democratic Party movement that would delegitimize the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, has hacked Pentagon systems. In 2014 it penetrated computer networks at the White House and the State Department. Neither the White House nor the mainstream media reacted with any great alarm.

In one of the most extensive hacks on America, Chinese hackers invaded the massive files of the Office of Personnel Management and stole personnel data and security background checks of millions of federal workers.

In other examples, the Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy and oversees the banking industry, detected more than 50 cyberbreaches between 2011 and 2015, and some were called espionage, Reuters reported in June, citing federal records. The IRS also has acknowledged that taxpayer files have been stolen by hackers.

Mr. Obama’s record on defeating hackers has come into focus during the transition as he orders a sweeping probe of Russia’s alleged hack on the president’s own Democratic Party.

His White House spokesman has joined Democratic politicians in issuing a blistering attack on Mr. Trump and his aides for ties to Russia, even as it was this administration that early on reached out to the Kremlin and asked for a “reset” in relations. In 2010 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped Moscow create a “Russian Silicon Valley.” White House press secretary Josh Earnest even seemingly questioned the patriotism of Trump supporters in Congress.

House intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes accused Mr. Obama of not taking Russia’s cyberthreat seriously until now, a month before he leave office, when Democratic Party politics are involved.

“Russia’s cyberattacks are no surprise to the House intelligence committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s belligerence for years,” Mr. Nunes said. “As I’ve said many times, the intelligence community has repeatedly failed to anticipate [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s hostile actions.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous intelligence committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat,” said Mr. Nunes, California Republican.

CIA Director John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s former campaign adviser and White House aide, has taken the extraordinary step of having his agency add to the climate of illegitimacy Democrats are trying to wrap around the Republican president-elect.

The Washington Post reported last week that CIA briefers told senators that Mr. Putin had ordered the hacking to help elect Mr. Trump, who sporadically has praised the former KGB officer as a stronger leader than Mr. Obama.

The CIA assessment goes well beyond a statement by James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence. He told the House intelligence committee on Nov. 17 that his agency does not have good intelligence on any link between the Putin regime and WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Mr. Clapper assessed Russia’s motives as a desire to “interfere” in elections in the West, as it has done in Europe. He did not say it was designed to get Mr. Trump elected.

Former CIA officer Kent Clizbe charges that Mr. Brennan has politicized the spy agency, and with the hacking brief to Congress, even more so today.

“But all the politicization of the CIA of the previous eight years is nothing compared to Brennan’s current operation — his vile use of the good name of the CIA in an attempt to invalidate our presidential election,” Mr. Clizbe said. “Brennan’s misuse of the CIA in an effort to serve his political masters is unprecedented and unforgivable. These are the actions of totalitarian dictators, using foreign security services to sully political opponents. Someone needs to stop him before it’s too late.”

Mr. Earnest, the White House press secretary, was asked Monday what the administration did to thwart Russia from hacking U.S. sites.

“Our intelligence community, our national security agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, were closely watching Russia’s malicious cyberactivity,” he said. “There was an ongoing investigation. It was being investigated. It was being closely watched in order to protect our democracy.”

Mr. Earnest unleashed a long attack on Mr. Trump, a recitation that might be unprecedented for a White House during what is supposed to be a smooth transition.

“You didn’t need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyberactivity,” Mr. Earnest said. “The president-elect didn’t call it into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton. So he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on. The last several weeks of the election were focused on a discussion of emails that had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were emails from the DNC and John Podesta — not from the RNC and Steve Bannon.”

Mr. Bannon, a former Breitbart News executive, is a senior Trump adviser headed to the White House.

Mr. Trump said in July that perhaps Russia could find the 33,000 emails deleted from Mrs. Clinton’s secret server during her tenure at the State Department. A federal judge ruled that her exclusive use of a private server for government business violated federal information laws.

Mr. Earnest also attacked Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress.

“So what I’ve stated is not an argument but really just a presentation of objective facts about what all of you and the American public knew in advance of the election,” he said. “And, yes, this was all material that was known by Republican politicians in the Congress that endorsed the president-elect. And how they reconcile their political strategy and their patriotism is something they’re going to have to explain.”

One of those supporters is Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and a former Marine Corps officer who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

“How misinformed. I think this statement verifies just how out of touch and clueless this administration truly is to the demands and expectations of the public,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s chief of staff. “There’s a reason why Democrats don’t have the House and the Senate, and have lost seats in various elections. I can tell you that Rep. Hunter was not duped by any stretch, and to question his patriotism means that he’s being questioned both as a lawmaker who loves this country and will fight for its interests and a U.S. Marine who did three tours.”

He added: “If the administration and Democrats are so worried about Russian hacking, they should have done something about it. They didn’t, but stating concerns now sure makes it one heck of an argument of convenience.”

As Mr. Obama began his second term, a number of experts said the U.S. still had not adjusted to the new world of hundreds of hackers attacking America daily.

“We are in a conflict — some would call it war,” Oracle’s security chief Mary Ann Davidson told Congress. “Let’s call it what it is. Given the diversity of potentially hostile entities building cadres of cyberwarriors probing our systems for weakness, infiltrating government networks and making similar attempts against businesses and critical industries, including our defense systems, is there any other conclusion to be reached?”

It was not until February that the White House proposed $3 billion in new funding to upgrade cyberdefenses and appoint a federal czar to oversee network protection.

When Russia hacked the White House two years ago, there did not appear any public threats against Moscow. The news media treated the story as a sign of the times: China, Russia and other adversaries are trying to hack into thousands of computer networks.

What makes the election hacking different, Democrats say, is that a foreign power was interfering in an election by targeting Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman and the DNC. WikiLeaks periodically dumped huge volumes of emails, creating news stories on Clinton aides’ intolerance toward Christians and, sometimes, toward each other.

Mr. Earnest stopped short of saying that the embarrassing disclosures released by WikiLeaks were a main factor in the election’s outcome, noting that analysts have cited a number of issues, such as Mrs. Clinton’s official emails and her strategy in battleground states.

Late today US and British cruise missiles joined with French and other NATO combat aircraft in Operation Odyssey Dawn/Operation Ellamy, a neo-imperialist bombing attack under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Acting under UN Security Council resolution 1973, US naval forces in the Mediterranean on Saturday night local time fired 112 cruise missiles at targets which the Pentagon claimed were related to Libya’s air defense system. But Mohammed al-Zawi, the Secretary General of the Libyan Parliament, told a Tripoli press conference that the “barbaric armed attack” and “savage aggression” had hit residential areas and office buildings as well as military targets, filling the hospitals of Tripoli and Misurata with civilian victims. Zawi accused the foreign powers of acting to protect a rebel leadership which contains notorious terrorist elements. The Libyan government repeated its request for the UN to send international observers to report objectively on events in Libya.

The attacking forces are expected to deploy more cruise missiles, Predator drones, and bombers, seeking to destroy the Libyan air defense system as a prelude to the systematic decimation of Libyan ground units. International observers have noted that US intelligence about Libya may be substandard, and that many cruise missiles may indeed have struck non-military targets.

Libya had responded to the UN vote by declaring a cease-fire, but Obama and Cameron brushed that aside. On Saturday, France 24 and al-Jazeera of Qatar, international propaganda networks hyping the attacks, broadcast hysterical reports of Qaddafi’s forces allegedly attacking the rebel stronghold of Bengazi. They showed a picture of a jet fighter being shot down and claimed this proved Qaddafi was defying the UN by keeping up his air strikes. It later turned out that the destroyed plane had belonged to the rebel air force. Such coverage provided justification for the bombing attacks starting a few hours later. The parallels to the Kuwait incubator babies hoax of 1990 were evident. Qaddafi loyalists said Saturday’s fighting was caused by rebel assaults on government lines in the hopes of provoking an air attack, plus local residents defending themselves against the rebels.

At the UN vote, the Indian delegate correctly pointed out that the decision to start the war had been made on the basis of no reliable information whatsoever, since UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s envoy to Libya had never reported to the Security Council. The bombing started shortly after a glittering Paris summit “in support of the Libyan people,” where Sarkozy, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper of Canada and other imperialist politicians had strutted and postured.

Token contingents from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were supposed to take part in the attack, but were nowhere to be seen, while some Arab states were expected to provide financial support. The minimum estimated cost of maintaining a no-fly zone over Libya for one year is estimated in the neighborhood of $15 billion — enough to fund WIC high-protein meals for impoverished US mothers and infants for two years.http://www.infowars.com/obamas-bay-of…

From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Fake Intelligence’

Never in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency has it and its surrogates so blatantly and boldly interfered in a U.S. election. The U.S. media, in a matter of hours, altered course from concentrating on «fake news» about innocent pizzerias being linked to child sexual exploitation to spotlighting «fake intelligence» about Russia’s alleged cyber-espionage operation designed to elect Donald Trump president. The CIA leaked to The Washington Post, the owner of which has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing, findings of a secret report on Russia’s alleged «fixing» of the 2016 U.S. presidential election to favor Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The scandal-plagued Mrs. Clinton was defeated by Trump not because of nefarious cyber-sleuths from Moscow but because she and her campaign forgot how Barack Obama’s and her husband’s free trade deals destroyed the economic lifeblood of America, particularly in the «rust belt» Midwestern states. Rather than talk jobs and the economy, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign concentrated on such trivial matters as trans-gender restrooms and a former Miss Venezuela harping in poor housemaid English about how she was insulted over her weight by Trump.

Mrs. Clinton has been reduced to appearing in public dressed in purple outfits looking like the children’s character «Barney» the dinosaur. Clinton’s «purple haze» is a continuation of George Soros’s election-overturning «Purple Revolution». While Soros-paid protesters commit acts of vandalism across the country, the failed presidential candidate is pathetically complaining about «fake news». But when it comes to the CIA’s «fake intelligence» about Russia and the U.S. election, some of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent supporters are demanding that the results of the November 8th election be rejected and that President Obama remain in office indefinitely until a new election can be sorted out. Of course, none of this is constitutional. And the Clintonistas even have a novel solution for dealing with the certain resulting protests by states that voted for Trump and his supporters: Obama must declare martial law and suspend the U.S. Constitution.

The CIA intelligence on Russian involvement in the U.S. presidential election is so sketchy that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in response to questions from members of Congress who were briefed on the CIA report, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the CIA’s contentions about Russia were «fuzzy and ambiguous». The FBI did not support the CIA’s findings, claiming that the CIA’s conclusions lacked «facts and tangible evidence». Even the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes of California, told The Washington Post that, as far as he was concerned, the CIA conclusions about Russia lacked «clear evidence», adding, «There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it».

But the comments of Nunes and the FBI have not prevented the CIA and their puppet-stringed Democrats and media pundits from complaining about a «rigged» election and even the need for an election «do over». There are no constitutional provisions for election remakes in the United States. Obama, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, did not help matters by ordering the intelligence community to undertake a full-scale investigation of Russia’s alleged involvement in the U.S. election. Chomping at the bit to derail Trump’s selection of Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State are the «all-but-married» neocon duo of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. This political version of «Ken and Barbie» want to turn Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing into a Russia-bashing event. McCain, continuing to show classic signs of dementia, declared that Russia waged a form of «warfare» against the United States during the election campaign. This is the same man who thought selecting Alaska’s governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 vice presidential running mate was wise political move.

It is instructive that Obama, by ordering an investigation into foreign interference in the election, helped provide ammunition to the CIA in trying to nullify the election results. Obama’s actions came the same week that Gambia’s dictator president, Yahya Jammeh — after conceding his re-election loss to his opponent — reversed course and nullified the election and Ghana’s President John Mahama, dragged his feet on conceding his election loss to his opponent. Obama, who is a friend of both Jammeh and Mahama, was acting more like a tin-pot African dictator than President of the United States in lending official credence to the election conspiracy story involving Russia.

Trump’s transition team dismissed the CIA’s charges and their flimsy report, stating, these are «the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction». It was CIA director George Tenet that told George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11 that it was a «a slam dunk case» that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The claim was used as prima facie evidence for the U.S. to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now, the very same CIA and some of the same discredited CIA officials are trying to convince the American people that Russia somehow «selected» Trump as president of the United States.

During the election campaign, it was not Russia, but the CIA that was trying to influence the American people. In August, after Trump’s nomination for president, former acting CIA director Michael Morrel said, «Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security». Morrel then began the CIA’s campaign to link Trump to Russia by telling CBS News that, «we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation». By «we», Morrel was saying the CIA. Those comments, alone, showed a CIA that was not hesitant to play favorites in the U.S. election. The entire meme that Russia interfered with the presidential election is a false one. The real headlines should read: «CIA interfered in presidential election by supporting Clinton over Trump».

Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, the architect of NSA’s unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program, said that Trump was «factually incorrect” in dismissing the CIA’s report about Russia’s alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails prior to the election. Five days before the election, Hayden penned an op-ed column for the CIA-linked Washington Post, in which he claimed that Trump was a «polezni durak», or «useful fool», for President Vladimir Putin. Such political commentary by intelligence chiefs, active or retired, is unprecedented in modern times.

Former CIA clandestine operative Robert Baer told CNN that he favors an election re-vote, even though there is no constitutional provision for one. Baer said, «It looks like to me, the Russians did interfere in our elections… Having worked in the CIA, if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections, and any democracy would». This is where Baer is altering history to suit himself and his Democratic friends. The CIA repeatedly has interfered in elections in Europe and Asia, as well as Latin America, Africa, and Oceania and there were no «do-overs» but plenty of coups engineered by the boys from Langley. Baer continued, «I don’t know how it would work constitutionally, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence… If the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again as an American citizen».

It is doubtful that Baer would have made his comments had he not been given some sort of green light from the CIA director, the Saudi-loving John Brennan. Brennan spent so much time as the CIA station chief in Riyadh kissing the robes of the Saudi royals that he lost any conception of what a constitutional federal republic is all about. It was Brennan who prevailed on Obama to fire Trump’s national security adviser-designate, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, as chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn concluded that it was Brennan and Obama who authorized the creation of the Islamic State to help topple the Syrian government.

The CIA has learned nothing from its blatant involvement in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the 1972 set-up of President Richard Nixon in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, the 1980 «October Surprise» that resulted in President Jimmy Carter’s re-election loss, and the 1980s «Iran-contra» scandal that almost forced President Ronald Reagan from office through impeachment and his replacement by the former CIA director, Vice President George H. W. Bush.

The CIA is the actual villain in the 2016 presidential election, just as it has been the villain in every major domestic and foreign scandal involving the United States since 1947. The problem with the CIA is that for the past 70 years it has held sway over almost every facet of America’s political, social, religious, entertainment, and educational life. As described in this author’s newly-released book, «The Almost Classified Guide to CIA Proprietaries, Front Companies & Contractors», the CIA has stamped its insidious imprimatur on every sector of American society, including the media. It is the CIA’s remote-controlled media, with its «fake news» and its pushing of the CIA’s «fake intelligence», that is victimizing the American people. President Trump’s first action as commander-in-chief should be a complete shake-up of the CIA with the goal of doing what President Kennedy vowed to do with the «bastards» who ran the agency: splinter it in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. The CIA were bastards in the early 1960s and they continue to be bastards today. Trump should fire every one of the bastards on January 20, 2017.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the US against repeating the mistake it made in Libya in Syria, noting that Barack Obama’s confession about Libya being his “greatest mistake” shows the US President is a “decent person.”

“Firstly, it confirms once again that the current US president is a decent man – and I say this without irony, because it’s not easy to say such things,” President Putin said during his annual Q&A session.

He recalled that Barack Obama, while still a senator, had criticized the actions of the US administration on its 2003 Iraq campaign.

“Unfortunately, [Obama] himself made those mistakes in Libya. It is very good that my colleague has the courage to [admit it], not everyone can do it,” Putin said, adding that “only a strong man” can make such bold statements. But Putin stressed “the bad thing is that this series of errors continues. After all, the same mistake was almost made in Syria, and it is still not clear what the outcome will be.”

When asked by Fox News last week what his “worst mistake” as a president had been, the US leader answered: “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.”

Putin’s response to the question about Obama was one of the most unexpected at the Q&A session.

When asked about his thoughts on Obama leaving his post later this year, the Russian president said “we will all leave some day,” adding, “there will come a new president, and we will work with the new one.” He did not, however, say who he prefers to see as US president – Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, saying only that he “prefers someone less exceptional.”

When Putin Bailed Out Obama

August 31, 2016

Exclusive: As pressure again builds on President Obama to attack Syria and press a new Cold War with Russia, the extraordinary events of three years ago after a sarin attack near Damascus are worth revisiting, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

Three years ago, when a reluctant President Barack Obama was about to launch an attack on Syria, supposedly in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad crossing a “red line” against using chemical weapons, Obama smelled a rat – or rather he sensed a mousetrap.

Advised by some of his intelligence advisers that the evidence blaming the Syrian government for the lethal sarin attack was weak, Obama disappointed many of Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks, including those in his own administration, by deferring action. He tossed the issue to Congress, thus guaranteeing a delay.

Precisely at that key juncture, Russian President Vladimir Putin took the pressure off Obama by persuading the Syrian government to destroy its chemical weapons, which Assad did – while still denying any role in the attack at Ghouta, just outside Damascus, on Aug. 21, 2013.

Washington’s hardliners were left aching for their lost opportunity to attack Syria by citing the Ghouta attack as a casus belli. But the evidence suggested, instead, a well-orchestrated Syrian rebel false-flag operation aimed at fabricating a pretext for direct U.S. intervention in the war on Syria.

With Putin’s assistance in getting Assad to surrender the chemical weapons, Obama was able to extricate himself from the corner that he had rather clumsily painted himself into with his earlier bravado talk about a “red line.”

But Washington’s irate neocons and many of their liberal-interventionist chums felt cheated out of their almost-war. After all, Syria had been on the neocon “regime change” list as long as Iraq and was supposed to follow the 2003 Iraq invasion if that neocon-driven adventure had not turned out so disastrously.

Still, the neocons would make Putin pay for his interference six months later by promoting an anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, followed by U.S. and European Union sanctions to punish Russia for its “aggression.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.“]

According to Jeffrey Goldberg who conducted a series of interviews with Obama for a lengthy article in The Atlantic, the President boasted about his decision on Aug. 30, 2013, to resist pressure for military action from many of his advisers and instead step outside what he called “the Washington playbook.”

Goldberg described the day as Obama’s “liberation day.” For Secretary of State John Kerry, however, Aug. 30 ended in disappointment after earlier that day he had shaken the rafters at the State Department bellowing for a U.S. attack on Syria.

Goldberg explained that having already caved in under hardline pressure to double down on sending more troops to Afghanistan for a feckless “counterinsurgency” operation in 2009, Obama was not in the mood for “seeking new dragons to slay” merely to preserve his “credibility.”

According to Goldberg, within the White House, Obama would argue that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”

Nevertheless, Washington’s neocons and liberal hawks – along with the Saudis, Israelis and French – argued strenuously that Obama was obliged to “retaliate” for Syria’s alleged violation of the “red line” he had set a year earlier against Syria’s using – or merely moving – chemical weapons.

Goldberg wrote that Kerry told Obama that he was expecting the President to give the final order for a military strike on Syria on Aug. 31 – the day after Kerry’s afternoon cri de guerre and Obama’s evening volte-face.

Obama: Sensing a Trap

It took uncharacteristic grit for Obama to face down his advisers and virtually Washington’s entire foreign policy establishment by calling off the planned attack on Syria at the last minute.

Goldberg wrote that Obama had “come to believe that he was walking into a trap — one laid both by allies and by adversaries, and by conventional expectations of what an American president is supposed to do.”Shortly after Kerry delivered his Aug. 30 philippic at the State Department, in which he blamed the Syrian government no fewer than 35 times for the chemical attack at Ghouta, Obama chose to spend an hour with his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, on the South Lawn of the White House.

Goldberg noted: “Obama did not choose McDonough randomly: He is the Obama aide most averse to U.S. military intervention, and someone who, in the words of one of his colleagues, ‘thinks in terms of traps.’”

It was an important conversation. In my view, Obama’s willingness to listen and then assert himself can be seen as a dress rehearsal for the kind of leadership that was required to hammer out a deal on the nuclear issue with Iran. The President ended up putting a tighter rein on Kerry and ordered him to avail himself of Moscow’s help in negotiating last year’s landmark deal restraining Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon.

In that venue also, Putin and Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proved helpful, and both Obama and Kerry have expressed appreciation for Russia’s assistance in closing that major deal.

Still, in late September 2013, after the dust had settled regarding the Syrian mousetrap – with the Putin-brokered agreement on track to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons on a U.S. ship specially configured for that purpose – it must have become crystal clear to Obama that he had come within inches of letting himself be tricked into starting yet another unnecessary war.

The first step into that trap had come a year earlier, when he was persuaded to set down a red line against Syria’s using or even moving its chemical weapons.

At the end of an impromptu press conference on Aug. 20, 2012, NBC’s Chuck Todd primed the mousetrap with some cheese by asking what seemed like an expected question that Obama appeared ready to answer. Todd asked a two-part question (one part was about Mitt Romney’s taxes and the other about Syria’s chemical weapons). Obama eventually wound around to the Syrian part of Todd’s question:

“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement … But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. … We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Clinton’s Hand

It is a safe bet that this answer was pushed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her neocon advisers who had made no secret of their determination to topple Bashar al-Assad, one way or another. The Washington Postaccount of the press conference suggests that White House staffers had been blindsided and were trying to put the best face on it.

Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Jeffrey Goldberg, “I didn’t know it [the red line] was coming.” Goldberg added that Vice President Joe Biden had repeatedly warned Obama against drawing a red line on chemical weapons, fearing that it would one day have to be enforced.Ten days before Obama’s impromptu press conference, Clinton met with her Turkish counterpart in Istanbul and emphasized the need to jointly plan ways to assist the rebels fighting to topple Assad – including possibly implementing a no-fly zone. Clinton announced the establishment of a working group in Turkey to respond to the Syrian crisis, according to The Associated Press. The group would increase the Syrian involvement of the intelligence services and militaries of both the U.S. and Turkey.

“We have been closely coordinating over the course of this conflict, but now we need to get into the real details of such operational planning. It needs to be across both of our governments,” Clinton said.

The urgent tone reflected the reality that in early 2012, Syrian government forces were beginning to prevail in key parts of the country. Middle Eastern history and politics Professor Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, noted that the Syrian opposition had little hope of being effective without help from the West.

Professor Salt pointed out that Damascus had mostly been cleared of rebels and Aleppo was on its way to being cleared, with the rebels very much “on the back foot. … that’s why Hillary Clinton is in Istanbul. To ask the basic question, ‘What’s next?’”

Foreign affairs analyst Richard Heydarian put it this way: “What the Clinton administration [sic] is trying to do right now is try to coordinate some sort of military approach with Turkey and possibly also with the help of Israel and Arab countries because they feel the opposition has a chance to retain its stronghold in Aleppo.”

These were signs of the times. Washington’s hawks felt something needed to be done to stanch rebel losses, and Turkey was eager to help – so much so that it appears likely that Turkey played a key role in enabling and coordinating the sarin false-flag attack in Ghouta a year later. [Also, see “A Call for Proof on Syria Sarin Attack.”]

Evidence reported by Seymour Hersh in April 2014 in the London Review of Books implicates Turkish intelligence and extremist Syrian rebels, NOT the “Syrian regime.” Hersh does his customarily thorough job of picking apart the story approved by the Establishment.

A Convenient Sarin Attack

So, sure enough, a sarin gas attack took place in Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013, a year and a day after Obama set his red line. The Washington establishment and its surrogate media stenographers immediately blamed the attack on Bashar al-Assad – a pantomime villain whom Western media shoehorn into the same category as its other favorite bête noire, Vladimir Putin.

Of course, you would not have learned this history from reading the “mainstream media,” which operated with the same sort of “group think” that is demonstrated before the disastrous invasion of Iraq, but evidence was available at the time and accumulating evidence since then has put the finger on jihadist rebels as the most likely sarin culprits. Intelligence reporting showed that they were getting sarin precursors from Europe via Turkey and making “homemade sarin.”

Though the behind-the-scenes story was ignored by the major U.S. news media, Hersh reported that British intelligence officials promptly acquired a sarin sample from the debris of the Aug. 21 attack, ran it through their laboratory, and determined it NOT to be the kind of sarin in Syrian army stocks.

(Hersh holds the uncommon twin-distinction of being the quintessential investigative, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter during an earlier era of more independent American journalism and now being blacklisted from today’s U.S. “mainstream media” which shuns such independence in favor of government “access” and lucrative careers. This is why he must go to the London Review of Books to get published.)

In late 2013, Hersh reported that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with Al Qaeda had mastered the mechanics of making sarin and should have been an obvious suspect. But U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. (and a top proponent of “humanitarian” wars) Samantha Power told the media the opposite. After all, blaming the sarin attack on Assad was just what Power and the other hawks needed to push Obama into a major retaliatory strike on Syria.

Hersh noted that intelligence analysts became so upset with “the administration cherry-picking intelligence” to “justify” a strike on Assad that the analysts were “throwing their hands in the air and saying, ‘How can we help this guy [Obama] when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?’”

Writing in December 2013, Hersh asked if “we have the whole story of Obama’s willingness to walk away from his ‘red line’ threat to bomb Syria. … It appears possible that at some point he was directly confronted with contradictory information: evidence strong enough to persuade him to cancel his attack plan, and take the criticism sure to come from Republicans.”

We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) tried to warn Obama shortly after the sarin attack. But we have little reason to believe that our Memoranda to the President are high on his reading list.

More likely, Obama was brought up short when, a few days before Aug. 30, 2013, he was paid a visit by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. According to Goldberg’s account, Clapper interrupted the President’s morning intelligence briefing “to make clear that the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas, while robust, was not a ‘slam dunk.’

“He chose the term carefully. Clapper, the chief of an intelligence community traumatized by its failures in the run-up to the Iraq War, was not going to overpromise, in the manner of the onetime CIA director George Tenet, who famously guaranteed George W. Bush a ‘slam dunk’” regarding all those non-existent WMD in Iraq.

Or, who knows? We should allow for the chance that the President was told the truth by someone else in his entourage.

Pay-Back for Putin

For his part, Russian President Putin had the gall to think that Moscow’s help on Syria might bring a more cooperative spirit in Washington and a chance to cultivate healthy bilateral relations based on mutual interest and respect. He even suggested that Washington might consider abandoning the notion that the U.S. is more equal, so to speak, than other nations.

Perhaps a bit deluded in the immediate afterglow of having helped Obama steer away from an unnecessary war in Syria, Putin published a highly unusual op-ed in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2013. Putin reportedly drafted the final paragraph himself. It is worth citing in full:“My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

So, if you are still wondering why the neocons and their complicit mainstream media have made Putin into the devil incarnate, think about his sin of pulling Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire in September 2013 when war with Syria was so tantalizingly close. The neocons would make Putin pay for that by moving into high gear plans for a coup d’etat in Ukraine six months later (Feb. 22, 2014), as Putin’s attention was focused on the Winter Olympics in Sochi and the fear that it would be disrupted by a terrorist attack.

In more than a half century watching U.S. presidential administrations develop foreign policy, I have not seen a more bizarre sequence of events.

[I provide more detail on the play-by-play during the fall 2013 imbroglio on Syria in a 30-minute video.]

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Story 1: Part 1, Testing Trump on The Issues of Concern To The American People: Abortion, Immigration, Obamacare Replacement, Taxation, Balanced Budgets, Paying Down The National Debt — Is Trump A Contender, Loser, Spoiler or Winner? — Videos

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

US National Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb – @FutureMoneyTren #NationalDebt

Congressman Pence – FairTax and FlatTax

Gov. Mike Huckabee Speech at “Iowa Freedom Summit” – Complete

The Beatles – Taxman – Lyrics

The Beatles – I’m a Loser – Subtitulado en español

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

December 22, 2014

0

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2012, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Taxpayers Reported $9.04 Trillion in Adjusted Gross Income and Paid $1.19 Trillion in Income Taxes in 2012

Taxpayers reported $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 136.1 million tax returns in 2012. This represents $725 billion in additional income over 2011 on 500,000 fewer tax returns. While the majority of the income gain went to the top 5 percent of taxpayers (those making $175,817 or more), every income group experienced an increase in income in 2012. Due to the increase in incomes, taxes paid increased by $142 billion to $1.185 trillion in 2012. Taxes paid increased for all income groups.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent increased to 21.9 percent of total AGI, the highest level since the peak year of 2007 (22.9 percent of total AGI). The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent increased to 38.1 percent from 35.1 percent in 2011, also the highest level since the peak in 2007 (39.8 percent).

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2012

Number of Returns*

AGI ($ millions)

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Group’s Share of Total AGI (IRS)

Group’s Share of Income Taxes

Income Split Point

Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers

136,080,353

9,041,744

1,184,978

100.0%

100.0%

Top 1%

1,360,804

1,976,738

451,328

21.9%

38.1%

> $434,682

22.8%

1-5%

5,443,214

1,354,206

247,215

15.0%

20.9%

18.3%

Top 5%

6,804,018

3,330,944

698,543

36.8%

58.9%

> $175,817

21.0%

5-10%

6,804,017

996,955

132,902

11.0%

11.2%

13.3%

Top 10%

13,608,035

4,327,899

831,445

47.9%

70.2%

> $125,195

19.2%

10-25%

20,412,053

1,933,778

192,601

21.4%

16.3%

10.0%

Top 25%

34,020,088

6,261,677

1,024,046

69.3%

86.4%

> $73,354

16.4%

25-50%

34,020,089

1,776,123

128,017

19.6%

10.8%

7.2%

Top 50%

68,040,177

8,037,800

1,152,063

88.9%

97.2%

> $36,055

14.3%

Bottom 50%

68,040,177

1,003,944

32,915

11.1%

2.8%

< $36,055

3.3%

*Does not include dependent filers.

Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes

Figure 1 shows the distribution of AGI and income taxes paid by income percentiles in 2012. In 2012, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,055) earned 11.1 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $33 billion in taxes, or 2.8 percent of all income taxes in 2012.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $434,682 and above), earned 21.9 percent of all AGI in 2012, but paid 38.1 percent of all federal income taxes.

Combined, the top 1 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs above $434,682) accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent (those with AGIs below $125,195) combined. In 2012, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $451 billion in income taxes, or 38.1 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $353 billion in income taxes, or 29.8 percent of all income taxes paid.

The Top 1 Percent’s Effective Tax Rate Is Nearly Seven Times Higher than the Bottom 50 percent’s

The 2012 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher effective income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs under $36,055) faced an average effective income tax rate of 3.3 percent. As taxpayer AGI increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($125,195 and $175,817) pay an average effective rate of 13.3 percent—four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $434,682 and higher) paid the highest effective income tax rate at 22.8 percent, 6.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers. The top 1 percent’s average effective tax rate for 2012 of 22.8 percent was slightly lower than that of 2011 (23.5 percent).

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent, which includes taxpayers with incomes over $2.2 million, actually paid a slightly lower income tax rate than the top 1 percent (21.7 percent versus 22.8 percent). This is due to the fact that very high income taxpayers are more likely to report a greater share of their income as taxable capital gains income. This leads to a slightly lower effective tax rate because capital gains and dividends income faces a lower top income tax rate (23.8 percent) than wage and business income (39.6 percent). It is important to note, however, that capital gains taxes at the individual level are the second layer of tax after the corporate income tax (which is 35 percent).

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

106,155

1,062

5,308

5,308

10,615

15,923

26,539

26,539

53,077

53,077

1988

108,873

1,089

5,444

5,444

10,887

16,331

27,218

27,218

54,436

54,436

1989

111,313

1,113

5,566

5,566

11,131

16,697

27,828

27,828

55,656

55,656

1990

112,812

1,128

5,641

5,641

11,281

16,922

28,203

28,203

56,406

56,406

1991

113,804

1,138

5,690

5,690

11,380

17,071

28,451

28,451

56,902

56,902

1992

112,653

1,127

5,633

5,633

11,265

16,898

28,163

28,163

56,326

56,326

1993

113,681

1,137

5,684

5,684

11,368

17,052

28,420

28,420

56,841

56,841

1994

114,990

1,150

5,749

5,749

11,499

17,248

28,747

28,747

57,495

57,495

1995

117,274

1,173

5,864

5,864

11,727

17,591

29,319

29,319

58,637

58,637

1996

119,442

1,194

5,972

5,972

11,944

17,916

29,860

29,860

59,721

59,721

1997

121,503

1,215

6,075

6,075

12,150

18,225

30,376

30,376

60,752

60,752

1998

123,776

1,238

6,189

6,189

12,378

18,566

30,944

30,944

61,888

61,888

1999

126,009

1,260

6,300

6,300

12,601

18,901

31,502

31,502

63,004

63,004

2000

128,227

1,282

6,411

6,411

12,823

19,234

32,057

32,057

64,114

64,114

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

119,371

119

1,194

5,969

5,969

11,937

17,906

29,843

29,843

59,685

59,685

2002

119,851

120

1,199

5,993

5,993

11,985

17,978

29,963

29,963

59,925

59,925

2003

120,759

121

1,208

6,038

6,038

12,076

18,114

30,190

30,190

60,379

60,379

2004

122,510

123

1,225

6,125

6,125

12,251

18,376

30,627

30,627

61,255

61,255

2005

124,673

125

1,247

6,234

6,234

12,467

18,701

31,168

31,168

62,337

62,337

2006

128,441

128

1,284

6,422

6,422

12,844

19,266

32,110

32,110

64,221

64,221

2007

132,655

133

1,327

6,633

6,633

13,265

19,898

33,164

33,164

66,327

66,327

2008

132,892

133

1,329

6,645

6,645

13,289

19,934

33,223

33,223

66,446

66,446

2009

132,620

133

1,326

6,631

6,631

13,262

19,893

33,155

33,155

66,310

66,310

2010

135,033

135

1,350

6,752

6,752

13,503

20,255

33,758

33,758

67,517

67,517

2011

136,586

137

1,366

6,829

6,829

13,659

20,488

34,146

34,146

68,293

68,293

2012

136,080

136

1,361

6,804

6,804

13,608

20,412

34,020

34,020

68,040

68,040

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 3. Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980–2012 ($Billions)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

$1,627

$138

$342

$181

$523

$400

$922

$417

$1,339

$288

1981

$1,791

$149

$372

$201

$573

$442

$1,015

$458

$1,473

$318

1982

$1,876

$167

$398

$207

$605

$460

$1,065

$478

$1,544

$332

1983

$1,970

$183

$428

$217

$646

$481

$1,127

$498

$1,625

$344

1984

$2,173

$210

$482

$240

$723

$528

$1,251

$543

$1,794

$379

1985

$2,344

$235

$531

$260

$791

$567

$1,359

$580

$1,939

$405

1986

$2,524

$285

$608

$278

$887

$604

$1,490

$613

$2,104

$421

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$2,814

$347

$722

$316

$1,038

$671

$1,709

$664

$2,374

$440

1988

$3,124

$474

$891

$342

$1,233

$718

$1,951

$707

$2,658

$466

1989

$3,299

$468

$918

$368

$1,287

$768

$2,054

$751

$2,805

$494

1990

$3,451

$483

$953

$385

$1,338

$806

$2,144

$788

$2,933

$519

1991

$3,516

$457

$943

$400

$1,343

$832

$2,175

$809

$2,984

$532

1992

$3,681

$524

$1,031

$413

$1,444

$856

$2,299

$832

$3,131

$549

1993

$3,776

$521

$1,048

$426

$1,474

$883

$2,358

$854

$3,212

$563

1994

$3,961

$547

$1,103

$449

$1,552

$929

$2,481

$890

$3,371

$590

1995

$4,245

$620

$1,223

$482

$1,705

$985

$2,690

$938

$3,628

$617

1996

$4,591

$737

$1,394

$515

$1,909

$1,043

$2,953

$992

$3,944

$646

1997

$5,023

$873

$1,597

$554

$2,151

$1,116

$3,268

$1,060

$4,328

$695

1998

$5,469

$1,010

$1,797

$597

$2,394

$1,196

$3,590

$1,132

$4,721

$748

1999

$5,909

$1,153

$2,012

$641

$2,653

$1,274

$3,927

$1,199

$5,126

$783

2000

$6,424

$1,337

$2,267

$688

$2,955

$1,358

$4,314

$1,276

$5,590

$834

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$6,116

$492

$1,065

$1,934

$666

$2,600

$1,334

$3,933

$1,302

$5,235

$881

2002

$5,982

$421

$960

$1,812

$660

$2,472

$1,339

$3,812

$1,303

$5,115

$867

2003

$6,157

$466

$1,030

$1,908

$679

$2,587

$1,375

$3,962

$1,325

$5,287

$870

2004

$6,735

$615

$1,279

$2,243

$725

$2,968

$1,455

$4,423

$1,403

$5,826

$908

2005

$7,366

$784

$1,561

$2,623

$778

$3,401

$1,540

$4,940

$1,473

$6,413

$953

2006

$7,970

$895

$1,761

$2,918

$841

$3,760

$1,652

$5,412

$1,568

$6,980

$990

2007

$8,622

$1,030

$1,971

$3,223

$905

$4,128

$1,770

$5,898

$1,673

$7,571

$1,051

2008

$8,206

$826

$1,657

$2,868

$905

$3,773

$1,782

$5,555

$1,673

$7,228

$978

2009

$7,579

$602

$1,305

$2,439

$878

$3,317

$1,740

$5,058

$1,620

$6,678

$900

2010

$8,040

$743

$1,517

$2,716

$915

$3,631

$1,800

$5,431

$1,665

$7,096

$944

2011

$8,317

$737

$1,556

$2,819

$956

$3,775

$1,866

$5,641

$1,716

$7,357

$961

2012

$9,042

$1,017

$1,977

$3,331

$997

$4,328

$1,934

$6,262

$1,776

$8,038

$1,004

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2012 ($Billions)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

$249

$47

$92

$31

$123

$59

$182

$50

$232

$18

1981

$282

$50

$99

$36

$135

$69

$204

$57

$261

$21

1982

$276

$53

$100

$34

$134

$66

$200

$56

$256

$20

1983

$272

$55

$101

$34

$135

$64

$199

$54

$252

$19

1984

$297

$63

$113

$37

$150

$68

$219

$57

$276

$22

1985

$322

$70

$125

$41

$166

$73

$238

$60

$299

$23

1986

$367

$94

$156

$44

$201

$78

$279

$64

$343

$24

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$369

$92

$160

$46

$205

$79

$284

$63

$347

$22

1988

$413

$114

$188

$48

$236

$85

$321

$68

$389

$24

1989

$433

$109

$190

$51

$241

$93

$334

$73

$408

$25

1990

$447

$112

$195

$52

$248

$97

$344

$77

$421

$26

1991

$448

$111

$194

$56

$250

$96

$347

$77

$424

$25

1992

$476

$131

$218

$58

$276

$97

$374

$78

$452

$24

1993

$503

$146

$238

$60

$298

$101

$399

$80

$479

$24

1994

$535

$154

$254

$64

$318

$108

$425

$84

$509

$25

1995

$588

$178

$288

$70

$357

$115

$473

$88

$561

$27

1996

$658

$213

$335

$76

$411

$124

$535

$95

$630

$28

1997

$727

$241

$377

$82

$460

$134

$594

$102

$696

$31

1998

$788

$274

$425

$88

$513

$139

$652

$103

$755

$33

1999

$877

$317

$486

$97

$583

$150

$733

$109

$842

$35

2000

$981

$367

$554

$106

$660

$164

$824

$118

$942

$38

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$885

$139

$294

$462

$101

$564

$158

$722

$120

$842

$43

2002

$794

$120

$263

$420

$93

$513

$143

$657

$104

$761

$33

2003

$746

$115

$251

$399

$85

$484

$133

$617

$98

$715

$30

2004

$829

$142

$301

$467

$91

$558

$137

$695

$102

$797

$32

2005

$932

$176

$361

$549

$98

$647

$145

$793

$106

$898

$33

2006

$1,020

$196

$402

$607

$108

$715

$157

$872

$113

$986

$35

2007

$1,112

$221

$443

$666

$117

$783

$170

$953

$122

$1,075

$37

2008

$1,029

$187

$386

$597

$115

$712

$168

$880

$117

$997

$32

2009

$863

$146

$314

$502

$101

$604

$146

$749

$93

$842

$21

2010

$949

$170

$355

$561

$110

$670

$156

$827

$100

$927

$22

2011

$1,043

$168

$366

$589

$123

$712

$181

$893

$120

$1,012

$30

2012

$1,185

$220

$451

$699

$133

$831

$193

$1,024

$128

$1,152

$33

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2012 (percent of total AGI earned by each group)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

100%

8.46%

21.01%

11.12%

32.13%

24.57%

56.70%

25.62%

82.32%

17.68%

1981

100%

8.30%

20.78%

11.20%

31.98%

24.69%

56.67%

25.59%

82.25%

17.75%

1982

100%

8.91%

21.23%

11.03%

32.26%

24.53%

56.79%

25.50%

82.29%

17.71%

1983

100%

9.29%

21.74%

11.04%

32.78%

24.44%

57.22%

25.30%

82.52%

17.48%

1984

100%

9.66%

22.19%

11.06%

33.25%

24.31%

57.56%

25.00%

82.56%

17.44%

1985

100%

10.03%

22.67%

11.10%

33.77%

24.21%

57.97%

24.77%

82.74%

17.26%

1986

100%

11.30%

24.11%

11.02%

35.12%

23.92%

59.04%

24.30%

83.34%

16.66%

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

100%

12.32%

25.67%

11.23%

36.90%

23.85%

60.75%

23.62%

84.37%

15.63%

1988

100%

15.16%

28.51%

10.94%

39.45%

22.99%

62.44%

22.63%

85.07%

14.93%

1989

100%

14.19%

27.84%

11.16%

39.00%

23.28%

62.28%

22.76%

85.04%

14.96%

1990

100%

14.00%

27.62%

11.15%

38.77%

23.36%

62.13%

22.84%

84.97%

15.03%

1991

100%

12.99%

26.83%

11.37%

38.20%

23.65%

61.85%

23.01%

84.87%

15.13%

1992

100%

14.23%

28.01%

11.21%

39.23%

23.25%

62.47%

22.61%

85.08%

14.92%

1993

100%

13.79%

27.76%

11.29%

39.05%

23.40%

62.45%

22.63%

85.08%

14.92%

1994

100%

13.80%

27.85%

11.34%

39.19%

23.45%

62.64%

22.48%

85.11%

14.89%

1995

100%

14.60%

28.81%

11.35%

40.16%

23.21%

63.37%

22.09%

85.46%

14.54%

1996

100%

16.04%

30.36%

11.23%

41.59%

22.73%

64.32%

21.60%

85.92%

14.08%

1997

100%

17.38%

31.79%

11.03%

42.83%

22.22%

65.05%

21.11%

86.16%

13.84%

1998

100%

18.47%

32.85%

10.92%

43.77%

21.87%

65.63%

20.69%

86.33%

13.67%

1999

100%

19.51%

34.04%

10.85%

44.89%

21.57%

66.46%

20.29%

86.75%

13.25%

2000

100%

20.81%

35.30%

10.71%

46.01%

21.15%

67.15%

19.86%

87.01%

12.99%

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

100%

8.05%

17.41%

31.61%

10.89%

42.50%

21.80%

64.31%

21.29%

85.60%

14.40%

2002

100%

7.04%

16.05%

30.29%

11.04%

41.33%

22.39%

63.71%

21.79%

85.50%

14.50%

2003

100%

7.56%

16.73%

30.99%

11.03%

42.01%

22.33%

64.34%

21.52%

85.87%

14.13%

2004

100%

9.14%

18.99%

33.31%

10.77%

44.07%

21.60%

65.68%

20.83%

86.51%

13.49%

2005

100%

10.64%

21.19%

35.61%

10.56%

46.17%

20.90%

67.07%

19.99%

87.06%

12.94%

2006

100%

11.23%

22.10%

36.62%

10.56%

47.17%

20.73%

67.91%

19.68%

87.58%

12.42%

2007

100%

11.95%

22.86%

37.39%

10.49%

47.88%

20.53%

68.41%

19.40%

87.81%

12.19%

2008

100%

10.06%

20.19%

34.95%

11.03%

45.98%

21.71%

67.69%

20.39%

88.08%

11.92%

2009

100%

7.94%

17.21%

32.18%

11.59%

43.77%

22.96%

66.74%

21.38%

88.12%

11.88%

2010

100%

9.24%

18.87%

33.78%

11.38%

45.17%

22.38%

67.55%

20.71%

88.26%

11.74%

2011

100%

8.86%

18.70%

33.89%

11.50%

45.39%

22.43%

67.82%

20.63%

88.45%

11.55%

2012

100%

11.25%

21.86%

36.84%

11.03%

47.87%

21.39%

69.25%

19.64%

88.90%

11.10%

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2012 (percent of federal income tax paid by each group)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

100%

19.05%

36.84%

12.44%

49.28%

23.74%

73.02%

19.93%

92.95%

7.05%

1981

100%

17.58%

35.06%

12.90%

47.96%

24.33%

72.29%

20.26%

92.55%

7.45%

1982

100%

19.03%

36.13%

12.45%

48.59%

23.91%

72.50%

20.15%

92.65%

7.35%

1983

100%

20.32%

37.26%

12.44%

49.71%

23.39%

73.10%

19.73%

92.83%

7.17%

1984

100%

21.12%

37.98%

12.58%

50.56%

22.92%

73.49%

19.16%

92.65%

7.35%

1985

100%

21.81%

38.78%

12.67%

51.46%

22.60%

74.06%

18.77%

92.83%

7.17%

1986

100%

25.75%

42.57%

12.12%

54.69%

21.33%

76.02%

17.52%

93.54%

6.46%

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

100%

24.81%

43.26%

12.35%

55.61%

21.31%

76.92%

17.02%

93.93%

6.07%

1988

100%

27.58%

45.62%

11.66%

57.28%

20.57%

77.84%

16.44%

94.28%

5.72%

1989

100%

25.24%

43.94%

11.85%

55.78%

21.44%

77.22%

16.94%

94.17%

5.83%

1990

100%

25.13%

43.64%

11.73%

55.36%

21.66%

77.02%

17.16%

94.19%

5.81%

1991

100%

24.82%

43.38%

12.45%

55.82%

21.46%

77.29%

17.23%

94.52%

5.48%

1992

100%

27.54%

45.88%

12.12%

58.01%

20.47%

78.48%

16.46%

94.94%

5.06%

1993

100%

29.01%

47.36%

11.88%

59.24%

20.03%

79.27%

15.92%

95.19%

4.81%

1994

100%

28.86%

47.52%

11.93%

59.45%

20.10%

79.55%

15.68%

95.23%

4.77%

1995

100%

30.26%

48.91%

11.84%

60.75%

19.62%

80.36%

15.03%

95.39%

4.61%

1996

100%

32.31%

50.97%

11.54%

62.51%

18.80%

81.32%

14.36%

95.68%

4.32%

1997

100%

33.17%

51.87%

11.33%

63.20%

18.47%

81.67%

14.05%

95.72%

4.28%

1998

100%

34.75%

53.84%

11.20%

65.04%

17.65%

82.69%

13.10%

95.79%

4.21%

1999

100%

36.18%

55.45%

11.00%

66.45%

17.09%

83.54%

12.46%

96.00%

4.00%

2000

100%

37.42%

56.47%

10.86%

67.33%

16.68%

84.01%

12.08%

96.09%

3.91%

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

100%

15.68%

33.22%

52.24%

11.44%

63.68%

17.88%

81.56%

13.54%

95.10%

4.90%

2002

100%

15.09%

33.09%

52.86%

11.77%

64.63%

18.04%

82.67%

13.12%

95.79%

4.21%

2003

100%

15.37%

33.69%

53.54%

11.35%

64.89%

17.87%

82.76%

13.17%

95.93%

4.07%

2004

100%

17.12%

36.28%

56.35%

10.96%

67.30%

16.52%

83.82%

12.31%

96.13%

3.87%

2005

100%

18.91%

38.78%

58.93%

10.52%

69.46%

15.61%

85.07%

11.35%

96.41%

3.59%

2006

100%

19.24%

39.36%

59.49%

10.59%

70.08%

15.41%

85.49%

11.10%

96.59%

3.41%

2007

100%

19.84%

39.81%

59.90%

10.51%

70.41%

15.30%

85.71%

10.93%

96.64%

3.36%

2008

100%

18.20%

37.51%

58.06%

11.14%

69.20%

16.37%

85.57%

11.33%

96.90%

3.10%

2009

100%

16.91%

36.34%

58.17%

11.72%

69.89%

16.85%

86.74%

10.80%

97.54%

2.46%

2010

100%

17.88%

37.38%

59.07%

11.55%

70.62%

16.49%

87.11%

10.53%

97.64%

2.36%

2011

100%

16.14%

35.06%

56.49%

11.77%

68.26%

17.36%

85.62%

11.50%

97.11%

2.89%

2012

100%

18.60%

38.09%

58.95%

11.22%

70.17%

16.25%

86.42%

10.80%

97.22%

2.78%

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2012 (minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles; thresholds not adjusted for inflation)

Year

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Top 10%

Top 25%

Top 50%

1980

$80,580

$43,792

$35,070

$23,606

$12,936

1981

$85,428

$47,845

$38,283

$25,655

$14,000

1982

$89,388

$49,284

$39,676

$27,027

$14,539

1983

$93,512

$51,553

$41,222

$27,827

$15,044

1984

$100,889

$55,423

$43,956

$29,360

$15,998

1985

$108,134

$58,883

$46,322

$30,928

$16,688

1986

$118,818

$62,377

$48,656

$32,242

$17,302

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$139,289

$68,414

$52,921

$33,983

$17,768

1988

$157,136

$72,735

$55,437

$35,398

$18,367

1989

$163,869

$76,933

$58,263

$36,839

$18,993

1990

$167,421

$79,064

$60,287

$38,080

$19,767

1991

$170,139

$81,720

$61,944

$38,929

$20,097

1992

$181,904

$85,103

$64,457

$40,378

$20,803

1993

$185,715

$87,386

$66,077

$41,210

$21,179

1994

$195,726

$91,226

$68,753

$42,742

$21,802

1995

$209,406

$96,221

$72,094

$44,207

$22,344

1996

$227,546

$101,141

$74,986

$45,757

$23,174

1997

$250,736

$108,048

$79,212

$48,173

$24,393

1998

$269,496

$114,729

$83,220

$50,607

$25,491

1999

$293,415

$120,846

$87,682

$52,965

$26,415

2000

$313,469

$128,336

$92,144

$55,225

$27,682

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$1,393,718

$306,635

$132,082

$96,151

$59,026

$31,418

2002

$1,245,352

$296,194

$130,750

$95,699

$59,066

$31,299

2003

$1,317,088

$305,939

$133,741

$97,470

$59,896

$31,447

2004

$1,617,918

$339,993

$140,758

$101,838

$62,794

$32,622

2005

$1,938,175

$379,261

$149,216

$106,864

$64,821

$33,484

2006

$2,124,625

$402,603

$157,390

$112,016

$67,291

$34,417

2007

$2,251,017

$426,439

$164,883

$116,396

$69,559

$35,541

2008

$1,867,652

$392,513

$163,512

$116,813

$69,813

$35,340

2009

$1,469,393

$351,968

$157,342

$114,181

$68,216

$34,156

2010

$1,634,386

$369,691

$161,579

$116,623

$69,126

$34,338

2011

$1,717,675

$388,905

$167,728

$120,136

$70,492

$34,823

2012

$2,161,175

$434,682

$175,817

$125,195

$73,354

$36,055

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2012 (percent of AGI paid in income taxes)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

15.31%

34.47%

26.85%

17.13%

23.49%

14.80%

19.72%

11.91%

17.29%

6.10%

1981

15.76%

33.37%

26.59%

18.16%

23.64%

15.53%

20.11%

12.48%

17.73%

6.62%

1982

14.72%

31.43%

25.05%

16.61%

22.17%

14.35%

18.79%

11.63%

16.57%

6.10%

1983

13.79%

30.18%

23.64%

15.54%

20.91%

13.20%

17.62%

10.76%

15.52%

5.66%

1984

13.68%

29.92%

23.42%

15.57%

20.81%

12.90%

17.47%

10.48%

15.35%

5.77%

1985

13.73%

29.86%

23.50%

15.69%

20.93%

12.83%

17.55%

10.41%

15.41%

5.70%

1986

14.54%

33.13%

25.68%

15.99%

22.64%

12.97%

18.72%

10.48%

16.32%

5.63%

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

13.12%

26.41%

22.10%

14.43%

19.77%

11.71%

16.61%

9.45%

14.60%

5.09%

1988

13.21%

24.04%

21.14%

14.07%

19.18%

11.82%

16.47%

9.60%

14.64%

5.06%

1989

13.12%

23.34%

20.71%

13.93%

18.77%

12.08%

16.27%

9.77%

14.53%

5.11%

1990

12.95%

23.25%

20.46%

13.63%

18.50%

12.01%

16.06%

9.73%

14.36%

5.01%

1991

12.75%

24.37%

20.62%

13.96%

18.63%

11.57%

15.93%

9.55%

14.20%

4.62%

1992

12.94%

25.05%

21.19%

13.99%

19.13%

11.39%

16.25%

9.42%

14.44%

4.39%

1993

13.32%

28.01%

22.71%

14.01%

20.20%

11.40%

16.90%

9.37%

14.90%

4.29%

1994

13.50%

28.23%

23.04%

14.20%

20.48%

11.57%

17.15%

9.42%

15.11%

4.32%

1995

13.86%

28.73%

23.53%

14.46%

20.97%

11.71%

17.58%

9.43%

15.47%

4.39%

1996

14.34%

28.87%

24.07%

14.74%

21.55%

11.86%

18.12%

9.53%

15.96%

4.40%

1997

14.48%

27.64%

23.62%

14.87%

21.36%

12.04%

18.18%

9.63%

16.09%

4.48%

1998

14.42%

27.12%

23.63%

14.79%

21.42%

11.63%

18.16%

9.12%

16.00%

4.44%

1999

14.85%

27.53%

24.18%

15.06%

21.98%

11.76%

18.66%

9.12%

16.43%

4.48%

2000

15.26%

27.45%

24.42%

15.48%

22.34%

12.04%

19.09%

9.28%

16.86%

4.60%

IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

14.47%

28.17%

27.60%

23.91%

15.20%

21.68%

11.87%

18.35%

9.20%

16.08%

4.92%

2002

13.28%

28.48%

27.37%

23.17%

14.15%

20.76%

10.70%

17.23%

8.00%

14.87%

3.86%

2003

12.11%

24.60%

24.38%

20.92%

12.46%

18.70%

9.69%

15.57%

7.41%

13.53%

3.49%

2004

12.31%

23.06%

23.52%

20.83%

12.53%

18.80%

9.41%

15.71%

7.27%

13.68%

3.53%

2005

12.65%

22.48%

23.15%

20.93%

12.61%

19.03%

9.45%

16.04%

7.18%

14.01%

3.51%

2006

12.80%

21.94%

22.80%

20.80%

12.84%

19.02%

9.52%

16.12%

7.22%

14.12%

3.51%

2007

12.90%

21.42%

22.46%

20.66%

12.92%

18.96%

9.61%

16.16%

7.27%

14.19%

3.56%

2008

12.54%

22.67%

23.29%

20.83%

12.66%

18.87%

9.45%

15.85%

6.97%

13.79%

3.26%

2009

11.39%

24.28%

24.05%

20.59%

11.53%

18.19%

8.36%

14.81%

5.76%

12.61%

2.35%

2010

11.81%

22.84%

23.39%

20.64%

11.98%

18.46%

8.70%

15.22%

6.01%

13.06%

2.37%

2011

12.54%

22.82%

23.50%

20.89%

12.83%

18.85%

9.70%

15.82%

6.98%

13.76%

3.13%

2012

13.11%

21.67%

22.83%

20.97%

13.33%

19.21%

9.96%

16.35%

7.21%

14.33%

3.28%

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

(1) For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.

(2) Income tax after credits (the tax measure above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included (as is often the case with other organizations), the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is legally classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

(4) AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, worker’s compensation benefits, and others.

(5) Tax return is the unit of analysis, which is broader than households, especially for those at the bottom end, many of which are dependent returns (prior to 2001). Some dependent returns are included in the figures here prior to 2001, and under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit) would likely be paired with their parents’ returns.

(6) These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax, although most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.

Earned Income Tax Credit

The 2014 maximum Earned Income Tax Credit for singles, heads of households, and joint filers is $496 if the filer has no children (Table 6). For one child the credit is $3,305, two children is $5,460, and three or more children is $6,143.

Table 6. 2014 Earned Income Tax Credit Parameters

Filing Status

No Children

One Child

Two Children

Three or More Children

Single or Head of Household

Earned Income Level for Max Credit

$6,480

$9,720

$13,650

$13,650

Maximum Credit

$496

$3,305

$5,460

$6,143

Income Level When Phase out Begins

$8,110

$17,830

$17,830

$17,830

Income Level When Phase-out Ends (Credit Equals Zero)

$14,590

$38,511

$43,756

$46,997

Married Filing Jointly

Earned Income Level for Max Credit

$6,480

$9,720

$13,650

$13,650

Maximum Credit

$496

$3,305

$5,460

$6,143

Earned Income Level When Phase-out Begins

$13,540

$23,260

$23,260

$23,260

Earned Income Level When Phase out Ends (Credit Equals Zero)

$20,020

$43,941

$49,186

$52,427

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Income Tax Brackets and Rates

In 2014, the income limits for all brackets and all filers will be adjusted for inflation and will be as follows (Table 1).[1] The top marginal income tax rate of 39.6 percent will hit taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $406,751 and higher for single filers and $457,601 and higher for married filers.

Table 1. 2014 Taxable Income Brackets and Rates

Rate

Single Filers

Married Joint Filers

Head of Household Filers

10%

$0 to $9,075

$0 to $18,150

$0 to $12,950

15%

$9,076 to $36,900

$18,151 to$73,800

$12,951 to $49,400

25%

$36,901 to $89,350

$73,801 to $148,850

$49,401 to $127,550

28%

$89,351 to $186,350

$148,851 to $226,850

$127,551 to $206,600

33%

$186,351 to $405,100

$226,851 to $405,100

$206,601 to $405,100

35%

$405,101 to 406,750

$405,101 to 457,600

$405,101 to $432,200

39.6%

$406,751+

$457,601+

$432,201+

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Standard Deduction and Personal Exemption

The standard deduction will increase by $100 from $6,100 to $6,200 for singles (Table 2). For married couples filing jointly, it will increase by $200 from $12,200 to $12,400.

Next year’s personal exemption will increase by $50 to $3,950.

Table 2. 2014 Standard Deduction and Personal Exemption

Filing Status

Deduction Amount

Single

$6,200.00

Married Filing Jointly

$12,400.00

Head of Household

$9,100.00

Personal Exemption

$3,950.00

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Alternative Minimum Tax

Since its creation in the 1960s, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) has not been adjusted for inflation. Thus, Congress was forced to “patch” the AMT by raising the exemption amount to prevent middle class taxpayers from being hit by the tax as a result of inflation.

On January 2, 2013 the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 finally indexed the income thresholds to inflation, preventing the necessity for an annual patch.

The AMT exemption amount for 2014 is $52,800 for singles and $82,100 for married couple filing jointly (Table 5).